SHIVAHARDWELL INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11536/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01064890202528 April 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case had already decided the same issue in favour of the assessees. The Court found that the present writ petition was squarely covered by these previous judgments. The Court directed that the revenue should follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, granting liberty to the revenue to proceed as advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shivahardwell Industries (India) Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148, Section 147, and Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with a penalty show cause notice, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-2020. The notices were dated 26.03.2024 and 28.03.2025. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions. The case was listed for hearing before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuing authority had the jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which enumerated the NFACT as having the exclusive power to issue such notices? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issue was squarely covered by previous judgments of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction based on the CBDT notification. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel appearing for the respondents (Income Tax Department) did not dispute the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11536-2

IN THE

Shivahardwell

Assistant Comm CORAM : H

H

Present : M

M

fo

M

fo

DEEPAK SIB

C issued under S order dated 28 demand dated penalty show c

2.

L involved in th favour by the j cases of Jatind CWP No.1574 India and othe

3.

L the afore assert 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.155 E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH CWP-11536 Date of Dec

Industries (India) Private Limited

Versus missioner of Income Tax , Circle HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT Mr. B.M.Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate, or the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Advocate, or the Income Tax Department. *** BAL, J. (ORAL)

Challenge in the present petition ection 148 of the Income Tax Ac 8.03.2025 issued under Section 1 28.03.2025 issued under Sectio cause notice dated 28.03.2025, for earned counsel for the petitio he instant writ petition is square judgment passed by a Co-ordina 45-2024 decided on 19.07.2024 a ers-CWP No.21509-2023 decided earned counsel appearing for the tion made by the learned counsel f AND HARYANA AT H 6-2025 (O&M) cision : 28.04.2025

d through its Director …Petitioner

1, Faridabad and others …Respondents PAK SIBAL TA BANERJI

is to notice dated 26.03.2024 ct, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’); 47 of the 1961 Act; notice of on 156 of the 1961 Act, and r AY 2019-2020. oner contends that the issue ely covered in the petitioner’s 2025.05.06 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11536-2

4.

W records of the c

5.

Th under Section Section 147 of Section 156 of for AY 2019-2 issue the same CBDT wherein exclusive powe

6.

A case (supra) an same issue, as revenue to follo accordingly, if 7. In of Jatinder Sin Singh’s case (s

8.

A

April 28, 2025 vandana Whether speak Whether report 2025 (O&M)

We have heard learned counsel fo case. he petitioner has challenged the n 148 of the 1961 Act, order d f the 1961 Act, notice of demand f the 1961 Act and penalty show 0 on the ground that the Issuing A e, in view of the circular/notific n it has been specifically enum er to issue the notice under Section A Co-ordinate Bench of this Cour nd Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), h raised in the present writ petiti ow the procedure as laid down un so advised. n view of the above, the present w ngh Bhangu’s case (supra), dec supra), decided on 29.07.2024. All the pending applications, if any (DEEPA

J (LAPIT

J

5

king/reasoned :

Yes/No table :

Yes/No for the parties and perused the notice dated 26.03.2024 issued dated 28.03.2025 issued under dated 28.03.2025 issued under cause notice dated 28.03.2025 Authority had no juri iction to ation dated 29.03.2022 of the merated that the NFACT has n 148 of the 1961 Act. rt in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s has allowed the petitions on the ion, by granting liberty to the nder the 1961 Act and proceed writ petition is allowed in terms cided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit y, also stand disposed of. AK SIBAL) UDGE

TA BANERJI) JUDGE

VANDANA 2025.05.06 09:39 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 →