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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14673/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01081868202528 May 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 at Chandigarh 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 cited cases, writ petitions involving similar issues regarding the validity of Section 148 notices issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officers in the context of faceless assessment were allowed. The respondents in those cases were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The High Court's decision in the present case implies that the challenge to the notice based on jurisdictional grounds, as argued by the petitioner, is accepted, following the precedent set by the earlier judgments. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with the aforementioned judgments, which suggests that the notice is likely quashed with liberty to the revenue to issue a fresh notice if permissible under the law and procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pavan Khaitan, has challenged a notice dated 21.03.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Chandigarh (respondent No.1) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This notice pertains to the Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argues that the notice was erroneously issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who lacks the authority to do so. The petitioner relies on a notification dated 28/29.03.2022, which mandates faceless assessment proceedings and vests exclusive powers to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner cites previous judgments by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in similar cases, Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others, where such petitions were allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 21.03.2025 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-2020, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, in light of the notification providing for faceless assessment proceedings and vesting exclusive powers with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contends that the impugned notice is erroneously issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, as the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022 mandates faceless assessment proceedings and grants exclusive powers to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148. The petitioner relies on 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), which allowed similar writ petitions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments 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-14673-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 109 CWP-14673-2025 Date of decision : 28.05.2025 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. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing counsel for the respondent/Income Tax. *** Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral) The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 21.03.2025 (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 2019-2020. 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, 1961. He further submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP SONIA GUGNANI 2025.05.28 17.43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-14673-2025 -2- 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 2025.05.28 17.43 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 →