Case Law Details
Gurjinder Singh Vs Union of India and others (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
SEO Title: Gurjinder Singh vs UOI: Punjab & Haryana HC on Sec 148
SEO Meta Description: Punjab & Haryana HC quashes reassessment notices, ruling that only NFAC can issue Sec 148 notices under CBDT circular. Read more on jurisdictional authority.
Summary: The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in Gurjinder Singh vs. Union of India that reopening notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid. The petitioner challenged the notices for AY 2017-18, citing a CBDT notification dated March 29, 2022, which mandates that only the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has the authority to issue Section 148 notices. The High Court referenced prior decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. UOI and Jasjit Singh vs. UOI, which held that allowing JAOs to issue such notices would undermine the faceless assessment scheme. The court quashed the notices and order, directing the revenue authorities to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act if they wished to proceed further.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notices dated 27.12.2023 issued under Section 148 A (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); 11.01.2024 issued under Section 148 A (b) of Act, 1961; order dated 27.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of Act, 1961 and notice dated 27.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of Act, 1961 for AY 20172018.
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. 21509-2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024
3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case.
5. The petitioner has challenged the notices/order dated 27.12.2023, 11.01.2024, 27.02.2024 and 27.02.2024 for AY 2017-18, 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.
6. 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.
7. 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
8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Author Bio
