RAVI MALIK V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CWP/8266/2025

AI Insights

Ravi Malik challenged the notice dated 23.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent order dated 03.03.2025 under Section 144 read with Section 147 for the assessment year 2020-2021. The primary contention was the lack of jurisdiction in issuing the notice, which was issued by 'JAO' instead of 'NFAC', contrary to the CBDT circular of 29.03.2022. The petitioner cited precedents where similar issues were resolved in favor of the petitioners, allowing the revenue to follow the correct procedure. The court, acknowledging the ongoing appeal with the Appellate Authority, directed the authority to decide the case in line with the cited precedents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 748066 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2025
• 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: RANVIJAYSINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MUKHI
• Keywords: CBDT; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; NFAC; Notice; JAO
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

"CWP-8266-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 124 CWP-8266-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-28.03.2025 Ravi Malik ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Hoshiarpur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent-department. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 23.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, as order dated 03.03.2025 issued under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act, 1961, for A.Y 2020-2021, since the notice dated 23.02.2024 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 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.04.03 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8266-2025 2 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 23.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, as order dated 03.03.2025 issued under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act, 1961, for A.Y 2020-2021, since the notice dated 23.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction and issued by ‘JAO’ instead of ‘NFAC’, 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 Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above. Gaurav Arora 2025.04.03 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8266-2025 3 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 28.03.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.03 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "