PINNACLE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15240/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084976202507 July 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms similar to its previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. In those cases, the writ petitions involving similar issues concerning the validity of Section 148 notices issued by jurisdictional officers instead of the NFAC were allowed. Liberty was granted to the respondents (revenue) in those cases to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The present judgment follows this precedent, implying that the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is likely to be considered invalid, and the revenue may be permitted to re-initiate proceedings correctly. The specific reasoning for the decision in this case is not detailed beyond referencing the prior judgments.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pinnacle Holding Private Limited, has filed a writ petition challenging 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, along with consequential assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The petitioner contends that the notice was erroneously issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who lacks the authority to do so. This is in light of the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022, which mandates faceless assessment proceedings and vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner relies on previous judgments of the same High Court in similar cases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 10.01.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid due to being issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), in light of the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022 concerning faceless assessment proceedings? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argues that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, has been erroneously issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. They assert that this officer has no jurisdiction to issue such a notice, as the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022 stipulates that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) possesses exclusive powers to issue notices under Section 148. The petitioner cites the High Court's decisions in 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. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-15240-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 112 CWP-15240-2025 Date of decision : 07.07.2025 Pinnacle Holding Private Limited.

... 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. Kartik Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Bhuvan Khurana, 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 (NFAC) has exclusive powers to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, SONIA GUGNANI 2025.07.08 09.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-15240-2025 -2- 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 2025.07.08 09.02 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 →