Disposed¶29

Purushotam v. Income Tax Officer and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2025CWP/3622/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-3622-2025 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana High Court; decision dated 17.02.2025; Section 148 notice issued by JAO instead of NFAC; CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022; AY 2016-2017; Income Tax Act, 1961 Sections 148, 147, 156, 271(1)(b), 271(F); writ petition disposed of with direction to Appellate Authority to decide pending appeal in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, 29.07.2024); no monetary quantum adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's pending appeal in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh; all pending applications, if any, also disposed of. ¶29

Purushotam Vs Income Tax Officer and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the notices and orders for AY 2016-2017 (under Sections 148, 147, 156, 271(1)(b) and 271(F) of the Income Tax Act, 1961) and consequential actions are without jurisdiction because the Section 148 notice dated 29.03.2023 was issued by 'JAO' instead of 'NFAC', contrary to the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power in NFAC.

¶23

Court's answer

Since the petitioner's appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The Court found the issue raised in the present petition to be covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, which had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue while granting liberty to the revenue to proceed under the Act, 1961 if so advised.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Arun Palli and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; judgment by Sudeepti Sharma, J.) disposed of a writ petition by Purshotam challenging, for AY 2016-2017, a notice dated 29.03.2023 under Section 148, a notice dated 05.12.2023 under Section 147, demand notices dated 05.12.2023 and 04.06.2024 under Section 156, a notice dated 04.06.2024 under Section 271(1)(b) and an order dated 04.06.2024 under Section 271(F) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential actions, on the ground that the Section 148 notice was issued by 'JAO' instead of 'NFAC' despite the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power in NFAC. Holding the issue covered by Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024), and noting the petitioner's appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority (a fact not disputed by the Union of India), the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal in terms of those judgments; pending applications were also disposed of.

¶1

CWP-3622-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

127 CWP-3622-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-17.02.2025

Purshotam

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Jind and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel (Through VC) with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India.

¶13

¶14

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶15

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); notice dated 05.12.2023 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 ; demand notice dated 05.12.2023 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 04.06.2024 issued under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 04.06.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; order dated 04.06.2024 issued under Section 271(F) of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 04.06.2024 under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2016-2017, since the notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction and

¶16

Gaurav Arora 2025.02.19 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CWP-3622-2025

¶18

¶19

issued by ‘JAO’ instead of ‘NFAC’ .

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the above 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); notice dated 05.12.2023 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 ; demand notice dated 05.12.2023 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 04.06.2024 issued under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 04.06.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; order dated 04.06.2024 issued under Section 271(F) of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 04.06.2024 under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2016-2017, since the notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction and issued by ‘JAO’ instead of ‘NFAC’ , in view of the circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 of

¶24

Gaurav Arora 2025.02.19 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CWP-3622-2025

¶26

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above.

¶30

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

¶31

(ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 17.02.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶32

17.02.2025

¶33

Gaurav Arora 2025.02.19 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Purushotam v. Income Tax Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushotam v. Income Tax Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahib Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Suresh Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer and Others

Suresh Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer and Others

Arvinder Singh Vs Union of India and Others

Bir Bhan Vs Union of India and Others

Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs Income Tax Officer and Another