GARHWAL SABHA REGD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10287/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01057355202509 April 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, co-ordinate benches had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue of jurisdiction concerning Section 148 notices. The reasoning was based on the principle that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction as per the relevant CBDT circular. The operative direction granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Garhwal Sabha Regd., filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 28.02.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144B, a demand notice dated 28.02.2025 under Section 156, and a penalty show cause notice dated 28.02.2025 under Section 270A, all for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The core of the challenge was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order, demand notice, and penalty show cause notice for AY 2019-2020 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction in the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which grants exclusive power to the NFAC for such notices. This contention is supported by judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the issue being covered by previous judgments of a co-ordinate bench.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 156,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 143

CWP-10287-2025 Date of Decision:-09.04.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1.

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) impugned assessment order dated 28.02.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 28.02.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 28.02.2025 issued under Section 270A of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019- 2020. 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 and others, 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 2025.04.11 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

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 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) impugned assessment order dated 28.02.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 28.02.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 28.02.2025 issued under Section 270A of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020, 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. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 09.04.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.11 14:25 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 →