Sarabjit Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Sarabjit Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), wherein identical petitions were allowed with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; pending applications, if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Issuing Authority had jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice (and consequently the assessment and demand for AY 2017-2018), given the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 specifically enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Court's answer

The issue raised in the present writ petition stands covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, which allowed identical writ petitions on the same issue; learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute this.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the said coverage, 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 stand disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Arun Palli and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; opinion authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J.). The petitioner challenged (i) notice dated 31.03.2024 under S.148, (ii) assessment order dated 19.03.2025 under S.147 and (iii) notice of demand dated 19.03.2025 under S.156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018, on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 having specifically vested exclusive power in the NFAC to issue notices under S.148. Counsel for the Union of India did not dispute that the issue stood covered. Relying on the Co-ordinate Bench rulings 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 (decided 29.07.2024), which had allowed identical petitions granting liberty to the revenue to follow the statutory procedure if so advised, the Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of those judgments; pending applications were also disposed of.

CWP-8429-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

135

CWP-8429-2025 Date of Decision:-09.04.2025

SARABJIT SINGH

....Petitioner

Vs.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENT CIR-2, LUDHIANA AND OTHERS

...Respondents

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

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

Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) impugned assessment order dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018.

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 2025.04.11 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8429-2025

2

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

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; impugned assessment order dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018 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 2025.04.11 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document