Raj Kumar v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsa & Ors.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Raj Kumar challenged the section 148 notice dated 25 April 2023 and consequential proceedings for AY 2016-17. He argued that, under the CBDT notification of 29 March 2022, the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction because NFAC had exclusive authority. He relied on Jatinder Singh Bhangu, CWP 15745/2024, decided 19 July 2024, and Jasjit Singh, CWP 21509/2023, decided 29 July 2024; Union counsel did not dispute coverage.

Source: Paras 1–5, PDF pp.1–2

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court recorded that the coordinate Bench had allowed petitions on the same issue while leaving Revenue free to follow the statutory procedure and proceed accordingly, if advised. It applied those decisions rather than independently re-examining all reassessment questions.

Source: Paras 5–7, PDF p.2

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The writ petition was disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. All pending applications were also disposed of.

Source: Paras 7–8, PDF p.2

4. OUTCOME

Assessee-favourable jurisdictional disposal through the incorporated precedents, with Revenue’s procedural liberty preserved. This order does not determine the amount of taxable income or prohibit every subsequent lawful proceeding.

Source: Paras 5–8, PDF p.2

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Read incorporated relief with the retained Revenue liberty

The operative paragraph adopts two earlier decisions; the preceding paragraph describes both allowance of the petitions and liberty for Revenue to follow the Act. A note that says only “notice cancelled forever” would omit an express qualification and overstate the effect on future lawful action.

Source: PDF p.2

Jurisdictional reasoning is distinct from the underlying assessment

The source identifies the notice, AY and notification-based competence issue. It does not examine escaped-income evidence, sanction detail or a quantified addition. The result therefore cannot resolve those issues or be presented as a determination that no tax was payable.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.2

Use the signed date and preserve the source limits

Both caption and signature state 28 January 2025; the later filename date is not the judicial date. The rendered pages were essential because the text layer is corrupted. This note reports the reasoning as issued and does not independently establish later statutory changes or appellate treatment of the incorporated authorities.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.2