DEEPAK SURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9406/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01051889202503 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 writ petitions on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the co-ordinate bench, which found that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the specific CBDT circular. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 issued by authorities other than the NFAC, when the CBDT notification reserves such power for the NFAC, are without jurisdiction. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and proceedings, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if permissible under law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Deepak Suri, challenged a notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-2023, along with consequential proceedings. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), REAC, Chandigarh, lacked jurisdiction. This was based on a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondent, represented by the Income Tax Officer, did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023, and consequential proceedings are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the Income Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, citing the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly reserves this power exclusively for the NFAC. The petitioner relied on 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). Revenue's Contention: The 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-9406-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 128 CWP-9406-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-03.04.2025 Deepak Suri ....Petitioner vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), REAC, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Abhinav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present 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 2022-2023 along with consequential proceedings. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.04.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-9406-2025 2 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 2022-2023 along with consequential proceedings issued by respondent, on the ground that he 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 17.02.2025

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 →