Baljit Singh V. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Amritsar

CWP/35181/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Baljit Singh, the petitioner, challenging a notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Junior Accounts Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), as required by a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. The notice pertained to the assessment year 2016-2017. The petitioner argued that the notice was without jurisdiction, referencing similar cases where the court had ruled in favor of the petitioners. The Union of India, represented by its counsel, did not dispute the procedural error. The court, acknowledging the ongoing appeal with the Appellate Authority, directed that the appeal be decided in line with the precedents set in the mentioned similar cases.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 817085 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KAPOOR; MUSKAN GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MUKHI
• Keywords: CBDT; Income Tax; JAO; Jurisdiction; NFAC; Notice; Section 144; Section 147; Section 148
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

"CWP-35181-2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 116 CWP-35181-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:-29.01.2025 Baljit Singh ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Amritsar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 31.03.2023 (P-2) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, as order dated 18.03.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961, for A.Y 2016-2017, since the notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction and issued by ‘JAO’ instead of ‘NFAC’ . 2. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.02.05 13:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-35181-2024 2 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. 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 31.03.2023 (P-2) issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, as order dated 18.03.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961, for A.Y 2016-2017, since the notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction and should be issued by ‘NFAC’ instead of ‘JAO’, 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. Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Gaurav Arora 2025.02.05 13:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-35181-2024 3 Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above. 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 29.01.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.05 13:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "