GURTEJ SINGH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9399/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01052305202503 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 and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cited cases, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which reserves exclusive power for the NFAC. The operative direction in the cited cases, which was followed here, was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The issue of whether the NFAC had indeed issued the notice or if the issuing authority acted outside its purview was implicitly decided in favor of the petitioner based on the cited precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gurtej Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2023-2024. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the learned counsel for the Union of India, did not dispute the petitioner's contention. The High Court perused the records and heard the parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2023-2024 is without jurisdiction, considering the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power in this regard. 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 issue. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-9399-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125 CWP-9399-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-03.04.2025 Gurtej Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Amritsar, Punjab & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) for AY 2023-2024. 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.04.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-9399-2025 2 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 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2023-2024, 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 03.04.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.07 11:15 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 →