Case Law Details
Rajinder Mehta Vs ITO (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Income Tax Section 148 Notice Issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Instead of Faceless Assessing Officer Quashed by Punjab and Haryana High Court
In the case of Rajinder Mehta Vs Income Tax officer, Ward 2(1) Faridabad the honorable Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that notice issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after Circular/ Notification dated 29.03.2022 is not in accordance in law. NFAC has exclusive power to issue u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961. This is on the basis of decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union Bank of India and others, passed in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh vs. Union Bank of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024.
The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, for A.Y. 2020-2021 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.
Similar view is taken in the case of Santosh Mehta Vs Income Tax officer, Ward 2(3) Faridabad.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential proceedings, 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. 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 notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 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.
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
