Loading High Court cases…
477 orders · Page 9 of 10
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was Rs.35,89,330/-. The learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) submitted that he had instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No.9 of 2024 dated September 17, 2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT, Government of India. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending applications were also disposed of as well.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, while considering the writ petition, noted that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by previous judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench 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, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, if so advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and proceedings, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate if legally permissible.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. The reasoning was that a co-ordinate bench of the High Court had previously allowed writ petitions on the same issue, which was also raised in the present case. In those prior judgments, liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of these precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and proceedings, with the option for the revenue to re-initiate the process correctly. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the petition should be allowed in terms of the consensus reached by the parties. The petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the impugned notices dated 18.09.2026 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed. The reasoning was based on the mutual agreement of the parties and the prior judgment in the Jyoti Sareen case. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judicial precedent, the court will uphold that agreement to provide consistent relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. 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 Section 148 notices in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to do so following the correct procedure.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously decided similar issues in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed, and liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Following these precedents, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the prior judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and proceedings, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate if they chose to follow the correct procedure.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The court did not delve into the merits of the case or the validity of Section 147A, as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.
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. These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, finding that the notices issued under Section 148 were invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, contrary to the CBDT circular. The Court granted 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 established precedent from co-ordinate benches of the same High Court, which the revenue did not contest. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with these precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notices and proceedings, with a possibility for the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings following the correct procedure.
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’s case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh’s case (decided on 29.07.2024). These earlier judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, 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 established precedent of the Co-ordinate Bench on the jurisdictional issue arising from the CBDT circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with these precedents, implying that the impugned notice and order were set aside, with a possibility for the revenue to re-initiate proceedings following the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.
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, the Court had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the exclusive power vested in the NFAC by the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent, implying that the impugned proceedings were quashed, with liberty to the revenue to restart the process if permissible.
The High Court considered the application for withdrawal of the main appeal filed by M/s Rana Sugar Ltd. For the reasons set out in the application, which were duly supported by an affidavit, the court allowed the application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed for by the appellant. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the appeal is not maintainable in view of Circular No. 09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below two crores are not maintainable. The Court noted that learned counsel for both the appellant (Revenue) and the respondent (assessee) were ad idem (in agreement) on this point. Consequently, the application for dismissal of the main case was allowed, and the appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original dispute, as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant based on the circular. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that since both parties are ad idem (in agreement) that the tax effect in the present appeal filed by the Revenue is less than Rs. 2 Crore, the appeal should be disposed of as not pressed. This decision is made in the wake of Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, read with Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of as not pressed. No specific issue regarding the merits of the assessment was decided. The ratio of this decision is that appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold, as defined by CBDT circulars, will be considered 'not pressed' if both parties agree, leading to their disposal on that procedural ground rather than on merits.
The High Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously allowed writ petitions on the same issue in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure if so advised. Given that the petitioner's appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The court did not decide the merits of the jurisdictional challenge itself but directed the appellate authority to consider it in light of prior precedents.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). These previous judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, finding that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notice and consequential proceedings, with the liberty for the revenue to re-initiate the process if permissible under law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench 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 previous judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The High Court found that the issue raised in the present writ petition was covered by these precedents. Consequently, the notice dated 13.04.2023 and consequential proceedings were set aside, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings following the correct procedure. All pending applications were also disposed of.
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's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue, with liberty granted 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 established precedent that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with these judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notices and granting liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if permissible under law.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court relied on two previous judgments by a Co-ordinate Bench: 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 both these cases, writ petitions challenging similar Section 148 notices were allowed on the same grounds. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments.
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, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench regarding the jurisdictional issue concerning the issuance of Section 148 notices in light of the relevant CBDT circular. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, implying that the impugned notice is set aside, but the revenue has the option to re-issue it following the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously decided similar issues in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same grounds raised by the petitioner, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act and proceed accordingly if advised. Following these precedents, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to allow the petition based on the prior rulings, implying the quashing of the impugned order and notice, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to do so by adhering to the correct procedure.
The High Court held that both parties were in agreement (ad idem) that the appeal was not maintainable. This was based on Circular No. 09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below two crores are not maintainable. Consequently, the Court ordered that the present appeal be disposed of as not pressed. The reasoning is solely based on the concession made by both parties and the applicability of the CBDT circular. No decision on the merits of the original dispute was made. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal.
The High Court held that both parties were in agreement (ad idem) that as per Circular No. 09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, no appeal where the tax effect is less than two crores is maintainable. Consequently, the Court ordered that the present appeal be disposed of, being not pressed. The reasoning is solely based on the parties' consensus regarding the non-maintainability of the appeal due to the tax effect, as per the aforementioned circular. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute.
The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The court noted that the appellant, through their learned counsel, made an oral request for withdrawal. The reasons provided in the application, supported by an affidavit, were found to be acceptable by the court. Consequently, the appeal, along with any associated applications, was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the original appeal was made. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the main appeal. The Court noted that the hearing was preponed to the current date upon the oral request of the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant. For the reasons set out in the application, which were duly supported by an affidavit, the application was allowed. Consequently, the appeal, along with any associated applications, was dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed for by the appellant. No decision on the merits of the appeal was made.
The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the application was supported by an affidavit and that the reasons set out therein were acceptable. Consequently, as prayed for by the applicant-appellant, the appeal, along with any pending applications, was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the original appeal was made.
The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the main appeal. The court noted that the appellant's counsel made an oral request for withdrawal, and the application was supported by an affidavit. For the reasons set out in the application, the court permitted the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal, along with any associated applications, was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal.
The High Court held that both parties are ad idem (in agreement) that per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, no appeal where the tax effect is less than two crores is maintainable. Consequently, the Court ordered that the present appeal be disposed of as not pressed. The reasoning is solely based on the parties' consensus regarding the circular's applicability and its implications for the maintainability of the appeal. No decision on the merits of the substantive tax dispute was made. The operative direction is to dispose of the appeal accordingly.
The High Court, acknowledging that both parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, ordered that the appeal be disposed of as not pressed. The reasoning is based on the circular, which states that appeals with a tax effect below two crores are not maintainable. Therefore, the court accepted the joint submission that the appeal should not proceed on merits. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular, and where both parties agree on its non-maintainability, will be dismissed as not pressed. No specific relief was granted or denied on the merits of the original assessment, and no issue was left undecided as the appeal itself was withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The court noted that the application was supported by an affidavit and that the reasons provided therein were satisfactory. Consequently, the appeal, along with any pending applications, was dismissed as withdrawn. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the original appeal or any specific legal provisions, as the matter was disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal. No specific issue was decided on merits, and therefore, no ratio decidendi for future citation on substantive tax law is established.
The High Court held that both parties were in agreement (ad idem) that as per Circular No. 09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), no appeal is maintainable where the tax effect is less than two crores. Consequently, the Court ordered that the present appeal be disposed of, being not pressed. The specific findings on the merits of the original dispute, if any, were not considered or decided. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling below the monetary threshold prescribed by a CBDT circular, and not pressed by the Revenue, will be dismissed on that procedural ground.
The High Court held that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by previous judgments of a co-ordinate bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior decisions. The court did not decide on the merits of the reassessment proceedings themselves but rather on the procedural challenge concerning jurisdiction. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the application filed by the respondent-assessee. The Court noted that the assessee had approached the competent authority under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, for an amicable resolution of the dispute. The revenue's counsel confirmed they had no objection to the application. Consequently, the Court, on the oral request of the parties and for the reasons set out in the application, allowed the application and disposed of the appeal. No specific findings on the merits of the original appeal were made as it was disposed of based on the settlement scheme. The operative direction was the disposal of the appeal.
The High Court decided that the appeal was not maintainable due to the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024. The reasoning was based on the submission by the assessee's counsel regarding the circular's provisions. The Revenue's counsel conceded to this point and agreed that the appeal should be disposed of as not pressed. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue that fall below the prescribed monetary limit by a CBDT circular are not maintainable and should be dismissed or disposed of as not pressed. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those referred cases, the Co-ordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice and order under Section 148 and Section 148A(d) respectively, in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power in this regard. The judgments in the referred cases granted liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of these precedents, implying that the impugned notice and order were quashed, with the possibility for the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the appellant-Bank had become infructuous. This conclusion was based on the submission made by the appellant-Bank's counsel, who stated that an order dated January 10, 2023, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rendered the present appeal infructuous. The Court accepted this submission and ordered the appeal to be disposed of accordingly. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original dispute between the assessee and the revenue, as the appeal was decided on a procedural ground. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as infructuous.
The High Court noted the submission by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Bank that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 2 crores, and therefore, as per CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024, the appeal did not survive for adjudication. This position was not disputed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant, who fairly submitted that the appeal be disposed of as not pressed. The Court acknowledged the appellant's reservation that if any cause of action, dispute, or interest still survived, they would seek restoration. Consequently, the Court ordered accordingly, disposing of the appeal as not pressed. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original dispute, and the ratio decidendi is limited to the procedural disposal based on the tax effect threshold and the parties' agreement.
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, 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 contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, by an authority without the prescribed jurisdiction, as per relevant CBDT circulars, are liable to be quashed. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential proceedings, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if permissible.
The High Court decided that the appeal filed by the Revenue was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021) 438 ITR 1 (SC). The reasoning was based on the concession made by the Revenue's counsel, who, after reviewing the matter, submitted that the appeal should be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's ruling. Consequently, the High Court ordered accordingly. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is demonstrably covered by a binding precedent from the Supreme Court, the High Court should follow that precedent and dispose of the appeal accordingly, especially when the Revenue concedes to such a course of action. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the Supreme Court's decision. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that since both the learned counsel for the parties are ad idem (in agreement) that the tax effect in the present appeal filed by the Revenue is less than Rs. 2 Crore, the appeal should be disposed of as not pressed. This decision is made in the wake of Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 read with Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of as not pressed. No issues were decided on merits.
The High Court ordered accordingly, meaning the appeal was disposed of as not pressed. The primary reason for this decision was the submission by the respondent-Bank, supported by the Revenue, that the appeal did not survive for adjudication due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024. The Court accepted the submission that the appeal be disposed of as not pressed. The ratio of the decision is that appeals with a tax effect below the threshold specified in relevant CBDT circulars are to be treated as not pressed and disposed of accordingly, unless specific circumstances warrant otherwise. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court, in the wake of Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, read with Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024, disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the consensus between the learned counsel for the parties that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 2 Crore. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal accordingly. No specific findings on the merits of the case were made, as the appeal was not pressed. The principle derived is that appeals with a low tax effect, as defined by the relevant CBDT circulars, can be withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). These earlier judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's argument regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which the revenue did not contest. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential proceedings, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate if they chose to follow the correct procedure.
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, similar writ petitions were allowed 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 contention that the notice was issued by an authority without jurisdiction, contrary to the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which grants exclusive power to the NFAC. The revenue did not contest this point. The operative direction is that the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned precedents.
The High Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was covered by the judgments of a co-ordinate bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and granting the petitioner liberty to seek appropriate remedies if the revenue chose to re-initiate proceedings following the correct procedure. No specific issue was left undecided.
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's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed 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 lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which designated the NFAC with exclusive power. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued under Section 148 by authorities other than the NFAC, post the CBDT circular, are without jurisdiction. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, with liberty to the revenue to proceed as advised after following the correct procedure.