PAVAN KHAITAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17563/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01096860202510 July 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the petition in terms similar to the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. In those referred cases, writ petitions involving similar issues concerning the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were allowed. The court granted liberty to the respondents (Income Tax Department) to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if they were so advised. The reasoning implies that the jurisdictional assessing officer may not have had the authority to issue the notice under the prevailing faceless assessment regime, aligning with the petitioner's primary contention. The operative direction is to dispose of the current petition based on the precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pavan Khaitan, challenged a notice dated 10.01.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (respondent No.1) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The petitioner argued that the notice was erroneously issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who lacked the authority to do so. This authority, according to the petitioner, rests exclusively with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) due to the faceless assessment proceedings mandated by a Notification dated 28/29.03.2022. The petitioner cited previous decisions of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in similar cases where such petitions were allowed, with liberty granted to the respondents to follow the prescribed procedure.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 10.01.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC)? (Question of law turning on the interpretation of the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022 regarding faceless assessment proceedings). Assessee's Contention: The impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, has been erroneously issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The petitioner relies on the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022, which mandates faceless assessment proceedings, and argues that only the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has the exclusive power to issue such notices. The petitioner further cites CWP No.15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No.21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others) as precedents where similar petitions were allowed. Revenue's Contention: No specific contention is recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-17563-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 CWP-17563-2025 Date of decision : 10.07.2025 Pavan Khaitan

... Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Chandigarh and others

... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present:- Mr. Praagbir Singh Dhindsa, Advocate for Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Income Tax Department. *** Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral) The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 10.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1961’) and all consequential assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 has erroneously been issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer although he has no juri iction to issue the same in view of the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022 which provides for faceless assessment proceedings and National Faceless Assessment Centre SONIA GUGNANI 2025.07.11 10.45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-17563-2025 -2- (NFAC) has exclusive powers to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. He further submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.15745-2024 -Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and connected matter, decided on 19.07.2024 as well as CWP No.21509-2023- Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA GUGNANI 2025.07.11 10.45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →