Disposed¶25

Ujjal Singh v. Income Tax Officer and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Feb 2025CWP/3660/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 notice; AY 2017-2018; Income Tax Act 1961; jurisdictional challenge; ITO Ward 3(1) Ludhiana; CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022; NFAC exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices; disposed in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP 15745-2024, 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP 21509-2023, 29.07.2024); liberty to revenue to proceed under the Act if so advised; Punjab & Haryana High Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 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, if any, stand disposed of. ¶25

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2017-2018 by respondent No. 1 was issued without jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148.

¶23

Court's answer

The issue raised in the present writ petition is the same as that decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, in which the writ petitions were allowed with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute this.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Arun Palli & Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.) disposed of a writ petition (CWP-3660-2025 (O&M)) filed by Ujjal Singh challenging a notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2017-2018 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Ludhiana (respondent No. 1), on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to issue it, the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 having specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended the issue was covered by Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024), which allowed writ petitions on the same issue with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; counsel for the Union of India did not dispute this. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of those two judgments, and all pending applications stood disposed of.

¶1

CWP-3660-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-3660-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.02.2025

Ujjal Singh

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1) Ludhiana & ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel for Ms.Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶15

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) for AY 2017-2018.

¶16

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 .

¶17

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

¶18

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶19

Gaurav Arora 2025.02.25 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-3660-2025

¶21

¶22

whole records of the case.

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2017-2018 issued by respondent No. 1, 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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

18.02.2025

¶29

Gaurav Arora

¶30

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶31

Gaurav Arora 2025.02.25 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ujjal Singh v. Income Tax Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ujjal Singh 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

Purushotam Vs Income Tax Officer and Others

Arvinder Singh Vs Union of India and Others

Bir Bhan Vs Union of India and Others

M/S Pal Tyre Services Vs State of Punjab and Others

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda Vs M/S M.S. Foods Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Adinath Investment & Trading Co. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.