KRISHNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17703/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01096796202501 July 2025Author: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was covered by the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench 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). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these previous judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying that the impugned notices and assessment order were set aside, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to do so following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Krishna, challenged several notices and an assessment order pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2015-2016. These included a notice dated 04.04.2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 04.04.2022 under Section 148A(d), a notice dated 21.03.2022 under Section 148A(b), and an assessment order dated 12.03.2024 under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act. The core of the challenge was that the authority issuing these notices and orders lacked jurisdiction. This was based on a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) had exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices and order issued under Sections 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), and the assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-2016 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and order. This contention was based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which, according to the petitioner, exclusively vested the power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act with the NFAC. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments on the same issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(d),Section 148A(b),Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-17703-2025 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 208

CWP-17703-2025 Date of decision: 01.07.2025 Krishna ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Rohtak, Haryana & anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Nisha Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 04.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961); order dated 04.04.2022 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 21.03.2022 issued under Section 148 A (b) of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 12.03.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2015-2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.07.04 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17703-2025 [2] 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 04.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961); order dated 04.04.2022 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 21.03.2022 issued under Section 148 A (b) of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 12.03.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2015-2016 on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no juri iction 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 Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), decided on 29.07.2024. 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (LISA GILL) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

JUDGE JUDGE 01.07.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.04 16:09 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 →