JATIN MOHAN SETH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8986/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01050351202528 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds concerning jurisdiction, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's argument regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the NFAC as per the CBDT circular, which the revenue did not contest. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notices and orders, with a liberty for the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jatin Mohan Seth, challenged a notice dated 13.04.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 19.03.2025 under Section 147, a demand notice dated 19.03.2025 under Section 156, and a penalty notice dated 19.03.2025 under Section 274, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-2020. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 13.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for AY 2019-2020 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power with the NFAC. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power for such issuances. The petitioner cited judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as precedents. Revenue's contention: 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,Section 147,Section 156,Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-8986-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 180 CWP-8986-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-28.03.2025 Jatin Mohan Seth ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Amritsar & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Umang Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 13.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); impugned assessment order dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 notice of demand dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961, penalty notice dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 274 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2019-2020. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.04.03 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8986-2025 2 disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 13.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; impugned assessment order dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 notice of demand dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961, penalty notice dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 274 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2019-2020, 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 28.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.03 15:21 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 →