Full News

Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice Issued Without Proper Authority

This case involves Jai Singh (the petitioner) challenging an income tax notice and related proceedings for the assessment year 2020-2021. The main issue was whether the notice under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), was validly issued by the correct authority. The court found that, based on previous similar cases, the notice was not issued by the proper authority as required by a CBDT circular. As a result, the court disposed of the petition in favor of Jai Singh, following the precedent set in earlier cases.

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

Jai Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (High Court of Punjab & Haryana)

CWP-3915-2025

Date: 13th February 2025

Key Takeaways

Authority to Issue Notice: The court reaffirmed that only the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has the exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022.
Precedent Followed: The decision follows earlier judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024).
Relief to Petitioner: The impugned notice and proceedings were quashed, but the revenue was given liberty to proceed afresh as per the law if they wish.
Impact: This judgment reinforces the importance of following proper legal procedures and authority when issuing tax notices.

Issue

Was the notice issued under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), for AY 2020-2021 valid, given that it was not issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre as required by the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022?

Facts

Parties: Jai Singh (petitioner) vs. Union of India & others (respondents).
Notice Challenged: Jai Singh challenged a notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), and the approval dated 22.03.2024 under Section 151 of the same Act, both relating to the assessment year 2020-2021.
Grounds: The main ground was that the notice was not issued by the proper authority (NFAC), as mandated by a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022.
Timeline: The notice and approval were issued in March 2024; the writ petition was decided on 13.02.2025.

Arguments

Petitioner (Jai Singh)

Argued that the notice under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) and the approval under Section 151 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) were invalid because they were not issued by the NFAC, as required by the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022.
Cited previous High Court decisions (Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh) where similar notices were quashed on the same grounds.

Respondent (Union of India)

Did not dispute the applicability of the cited judgments or the requirement that the NFAC must issue such notices.

Key Legal Precedents

Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024)
Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024)

Both cases involved the same issue: whether notices under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), not issued by the NFAC, were valid. The court in those cases quashed the notices and allowed the revenue to proceed afresh as per the law.

Statutory References:

Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961): Deals with the issuance of notice for income escaping assessment.
Section 151 (of Income Tax Act, 1961): Deals with the approval required for issuing such notices.
CBDT Circular/Notification dated 29.03.2022: Specifies that only the NFAC has the authority to issue notices under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

Judgement

The High Court disposed of Jai Singh’s writ petition in line with the earlier decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh.
The court quashed the impugned notice and related proceedings, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the correct procedure under the law if they wish to proceed further.
All pending applications were also disposed of.

FAQs

Q1: Why was the notice under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) quashed?

A: Because it was not issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), as required by the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022.

Q2: What happens next for the revenue authorities?

A: They are allowed to initiate fresh proceedings, but only if they follow the correct legal procedure and authority as per the Income Tax Act and the CBDT circular.

Q3: Does this mean all similar notices are invalid?

A: Notices under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) not issued by the NFAC, in violation of the CBDT circular, are likely to be quashed if challenged, based on this and previous judgments.

Q4: What is the significance of the cited cases?

A: The cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh set the precedent that only the NFAC can issue such notices, and the court followed these precedents in this case.

Q5: Can the revenue issue a new notice?

A: Yes, the court has given liberty to the revenue to proceed afresh, provided they comply with the law and proper procedure.

LEGAL REFERENCES

CONCEPTS

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Similar Ripples

Questions

There is no question

Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice Issued Without Proper Authority

Write your Comment

Generic

Reportdata/ITA-HC-Punjab-CWP-3915-2025.pdf

Would you like to edit this news ? Edit

Select Format

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Advanced

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Add tags

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

PUBLISH IT

Don't sell
PUBLISH IT
Publish privately
SAVE AS DRAFT

Dont't publish now

<a href="https://thakurani.sgp1.digitaloceanspaces.com/media/data/ITA-HC-Punjab-CWP-3915-2025.pdf" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 204);" target="_blank">Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here</a><h3>Case Name</h3>Jai Singh vs. Union of India &amp; Ors. (High Court of Punjab &amp; Haryana)CWP-3915-2025Date: 13th February 2025<h3>Key Takeaways</h3><ul><li>Authority to Issue Notice: The court reaffirmed that only the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has the exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022.</li><li>Precedent Followed: The decision follows earlier judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024).</li><li>Relief to Petitioner: The impugned notice and proceedings were quashed, but the revenue was given liberty to proceed afresh as per the law if they wish.</li><li>Impact: This judgment reinforces the importance of following proper legal procedures and authority when issuing tax notices.</li></ul><h3>Issue</h3>Was the notice issued under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), for AY 2020-2021 valid, given that it was not issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre as required by the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022?<h3>Facts</h3><ul><li>Parties: Jai Singh (petitioner) vs. Union of India &amp; others (respondents).</li><li>Notice Challenged: Jai Singh challenged a notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), and the approval dated 22.03.2024 under Section 151 of the same Act, both relating to the assessment year 2020-2021.</li><li>Grounds: The main ground was that the notice was not issued by the proper authority (NFAC), as mandated by a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022.</li><li>Timeline: The notice and approval were issued in March 2024; the writ petition was decided on 13.02.2025.</li></ul><h3>Arguments</h3>Petitioner (Jai Singh)<ul><li>Argued that the notice under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) and the approval under Section 151 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) were invalid because they were not issued by the NFAC, as required by the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022.</li><li>Cited previous High Court decisions (Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh) where similar notices were quashed on the same grounds.</li></ul> Respondent (Union of India)<ul><li>Did not dispute the applicability of the cited judgments or the requirement that the NFAC must issue such notices.</li></ul><h3>Key Legal Precedents</h3><ul><li>Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024)</li><li>Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024)</li></ul>Both cases involved the same issue: whether notices under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), not issued by the NFAC, were valid. The court in those cases quashed the notices and allowed the revenue to proceed afresh as per the law. Statutory References:<ul><li>Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961): Deals with the issuance of notice for income escaping assessment.</li><li>Section 151 (of Income Tax Act, 1961): Deals with the approval required for issuing such notices.</li><li>CBDT Circular/Notification dated 29.03.2022: Specifies that only the NFAC has the authority to issue notices under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961).</li></ul><h3>Judgement</h3><ul><li>The High Court disposed of Jai Singh’s writ petition in line with the earlier decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh.</li><li>The court quashed the impugned notice and related proceedings, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the correct procedure under the law if they wish to proceed further.</li><li>All pending applications were also disposed of.</li></ul><h3>FAQs</h3>Q1: Why was the notice under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) quashed?A: Because it was not issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), as required by the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. Q2: What happens next for the revenue authorities?A: They are allowed to initiate fresh proceedings, but only if they follow the correct legal procedure and authority as per the Income Tax Act and the CBDT circular. Q3: Does this mean all similar notices are invalid?A: Notices under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) not issued by the NFAC, in violation of the CBDT circular, are likely to be quashed if challenged, based on this and previous judgments. Q4: What is the significance of the cited cases?A: The cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh set the precedent that only the NFAC can issue such notices, and the court followed these precedents in this case. Q5: Can the revenue issue a new notice?A: Yes, the court has given liberty to the revenue to proceed afresh, provided they comply with the law and proper procedure.

<a href="https://thakurani.sgp1.digitaloceanspaces.com/media/data/ITA-HC-Punjab-CWP-3915-2025.pdf" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 204);" target="_blank">Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here</a><h3>Case Name</h3>Jai Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (High Court of Punjab & Haryana)CWP-3915-2025Date: 13th February 2025<h3>Key Takeaways</h3><ul><li>Authority to Issue Notice: The court reaffirmed that only the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has the exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022.</li><li>Precedent Followed: The decision follows earlier judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024).</li><li>Relief to Petitioner: The impugned notice and proceedings were quashed, but the revenue was given liberty to proceed afresh as per the law if they wish.</li><li>Impact: This judgment reinforces the importance of following proper legal procedures and authority when issuing tax notices.</li></ul><h3>Issue</h3>Was the notice issued under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), for AY 2020-2021 valid, given that it was not issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre as required by the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022?<h3>Facts</h3><ul><li>Parties: Jai Singh (petitioner) vs. Union of India & others (respondents).</li><li>Notice Challenged: Jai Singh challenged a notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), and the approval dated 22.03.2024 under Section 151 of the same Act, both relating to the assessment year 2020-2021.</li><li>Grounds: The main ground was that the notice was not issued by the proper authority (NFAC), as mandated by a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022.</li><li>Timeline: The notice and approval were issued in March 2024; the writ petition was decided on 13.02.2025.</li></ul><h3>Arguments</h3>Petitioner (Jai Singh)<ul><li>Argued that the notice under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) and the approval under Section 151 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) were invalid because they were not issued by the NFAC, as required by the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022.</li><li>Cited previous High Court decisions (Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh) where similar notices were quashed on the same grounds.</li></ul> Respondent (Union of India)<ul><li>Did not dispute the applicability of the cited judgments or the requirement that the NFAC must issue such notices.</li></ul><h3>Key Legal Precedents</h3><ul><li>Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024)</li><li>Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024)</li></ul>Both cases involved the same issue: whether notices under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961), not issued by the NFAC, were valid. The court in those cases quashed the notices and allowed the revenue to proceed afresh as per the law. Statutory References:<ul><li>Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961): Deals with the issuance of notice for income escaping assessment.</li><li>Section 151 (of Income Tax Act, 1961): Deals with the approval required for issuing such notices.</li><li>CBDT Circular/Notification dated 29.03.2022: Specifies that only the NFAC has the authority to issue notices under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961).</li></ul><h3>Judgement</h3><ul><li>The High Court disposed of Jai Singh’s writ petition in line with the earlier decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh.</li><li>The court quashed the impugned notice and related proceedings, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the correct procedure under the law if they wish to proceed further.</li><li>All pending applications were also disposed of.</li></ul><h3>FAQs</h3>Q1: Why was the notice under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) quashed?A: Because it was not issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), as required by the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. Q2: What happens next for the revenue authorities?A: They are allowed to initiate fresh proceedings, but only if they follow the correct legal procedure and authority as per the Income Tax Act and the CBDT circular. Q3: Does this mean all similar notices are invalid?A: Notices under Section 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) not issued by the NFAC, in violation of the CBDT circular, are likely to be quashed if challenged, based on this and previous judgments. Q4: What is the significance of the cited cases?A: The cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh set the precedent that only the NFAC can issue such notices, and the court followed these precedents in this case. Q5: Can the revenue issue a new notice?A: Yes, the court has given liberty to the revenue to proceed afresh, provided they comply with the law and proper procedure.

Hi Thakurani,
I want to withdraw in my Thakurani wallet
Thanks,

Select the reason for validity check

I feel great..the news is still good.please give the reason too..thanks..

Why do you think the News as invalid?” Please mention the reason.

I appreciate your effort. May I request you to select one of the reasons from below.
I am marking this post and your reason to Thakurani Moderators. They will take appropriate action.
Thanks,

Write your reason

My Dear ,

Harassing

Spam

Ingenuine

Rotten

Alien

Plagiarism

Unformatted

Full News

Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice Issued Without Proper Authority