ISHWER MITTAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (2) HSIIDC UDHYOG VIHAR, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18927/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01103927202311 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024), decided on July 19, 2024, and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023), decided on July 29, 2024. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue raised in the present petition. The court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction is that the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and order, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if advised, following the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ishwar Mittal, challenged a notice dated March 23, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated March 23, 2023, issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, concerning Assessment Year 2016-2017. The challenge also extended to all consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward (2), HSIIDS Udhyog Vihar, Gurgaon. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 23.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 23.03.2023 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, 1961, for AY 2016-2017, are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice and order, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The petitioner cited the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023) as covering the issue. Revenue's Contentions: The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-18927-2023 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107+260

CWP-18927-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision:-11.02.2025 Ishwar Mittal

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward (2), HSIIDS Udhyog Vihar, Gurgaon ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent-department. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. C.M. No. 19808-2024 Application is allowed as prayed for. Accordingly, reply filed on behalf of the respondent, is taken on record. CWP No. 18927-2023 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 23.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and order dated 23.03.2023 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for A.Y 2016-2017. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue Gaurav Arora 2025.02.19 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18927-2023 2 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 23.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and order dated 23.03.2023 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for A.Y 2016-2017, on the ground that the Issuing Authority 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.02.19 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18927-2023 3 Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), decided on 29.07.2024 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 11.02.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.19 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →