SURESH SINGAL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/999/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01006357202516 January 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 its previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, similar writ petitions were allowed on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the co-ordinate benches concerning the jurisdictional issue arising from the CBDT circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying that the impugned notices and proceedings were quashed, with a liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if they chose to do so following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Suresh Singal, challenged a notice dated 15.03.2023 under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148A(d), and a notice dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148 of the Act, along with consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The challenge was based on the contention 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, Union of India and others, did not dispute this position.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 15.03.2023 under Section 148A(b), order dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148A(d), and notice dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020, are liable to be quashed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning Section 148A and Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's Contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and order due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-999-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 137 CWP-999-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-16.01.2025 Suresh Singal ....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Ms. Aakriti and Ms. Ambika Jindal, Advocates for the petitioner Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel (Through VC) for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 15.03.2023 issued under Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148A (d) of the Act, 1961 and notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 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 2025.01.21 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-999-2025 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 15.03.2023 issued under Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148A (d) of the Act, 1961 and notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 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 16.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.21 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →