Jagdeep Singh Samrao Vs Union of India and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Jagdeep Singh Samrao Vs Union of India and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (29.07.2024), with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; all pending applications also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 08.02.2024 under Section 148, the notice dated 01.10.2024 under Section 144, the assessment order dated 11.03.2025 and the notice of demand dated 11.03.2025 under Section 156 for AY 2020-2021 were issued without jurisdiction, given the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices.

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), i.e., the jurisdictional challenge to the notices/orders for AY 2020-2021 is accepted as covered by those Co-ordinate Bench decisions, with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Income-tax writ petition (AY 2020-2021), CWP-10607-2025 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana HC at Chandigarh, decided 09.04.2025 (Coram: Arun Palli & Sudeepti Sharma JJ; judgment under Sudeepti Sharma, J.). Petitioner Jagdeep Singh Samrao challenged the notice dated 08.02.2024 under Section 148, the notice dated 01.10.2024 under Section 144, the assessment order dated 11.03.2025, the notice of demand dated 11.03.2025 under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential actions, on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. Counsel for the petitioner contended the issue was covered by Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (CWP No. 215092023, decided 29.07.2024); counsel for the Union of India did not dispute this. The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of those two judgments, which had granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; all pending applications also stand disposed of.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204

CWP-10607-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.04.2025

Jagdeep Singh Samrao

....Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India & ors.

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Mayur Karkra and Mr. Ashwani Kumar Kanojia, Advocates, for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 08.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); notice dated 01.10.2024 issued under Section 144 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 11.03.2025; notice of demand dated 11.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021. 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. 215092023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024 .

Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same.

Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case.

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 08.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 01.10.2024 issued under Section 144 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 11.03.2025; notice of demand dated 11.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021 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.

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.

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

All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 09.04.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document