SURINDER SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8511/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01047956202509 April 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, similar writ petitions were allowed, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's argument that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular of 29.03.2022, which grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices. The revenue did not contest this point. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential actions, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate the process correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Surinder Singh, challenged a notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-2018, and all consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1 (3), Ludhiana, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention. The High Court considered previous judgments on similar issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-2018, is without jurisdiction in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which mandates that the NFAC has exclusive power for such issuances. The petitioner cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023) as covering the present issue. Revenue's Contentions: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-8511-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 136

CWP-8511-2025 Date of Decision:-09.04.2025 SURINDER SINGH ....Petitioner Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD No. 1 (3), LUDHIANA & OTHERS

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate Ms. Uma Bharti, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, passed in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509- 2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024 . 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. Gaurav Arora 2025.04.11 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8511-2025 2 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018 on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction to issue the same, in view of the circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 of the CBDT, wherein, it has been specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra) and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), allowed the writ petitions on the same issue, as raised in the present writ petition, by granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of, in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra), decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), decided on 29.07.2024 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 09.04.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.11 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →