SURJEET SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9403/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01051910202503 April 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 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (decided on 29.07.2024). These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, 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 challenge to the jurisdiction of the issuing authority for the Section 148 notice, assessment order, and consequential notices, citing a CBDT circular that allegedly vested exclusive power with the NFAC. The revenue did not contest this point. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent, implying the original notices and orders were set aside but allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Surjeet Singh, challenged a notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 13.03.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144, and a consequential notice of demand and penalty show cause notice dated 13.03.2025, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-2018. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 13.03.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144, and the consequential notice of demand and penalty show cause notice dated 13.03.2025 for AY 2017-2018 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and order because the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vests exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, with the NFAC. The petitioner relied on 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). Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions and the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-9403-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126 CWP-9403-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-03.04.2025 Surjeet Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”); assessment order dated 13.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961 and notice of demand and penalty show cause notice dated 13.03.2025 and 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.04.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-9403-2025 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 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 13.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961 and notice of demand and penalty show cause notice dated 13.03.2025 and 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 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 →