KAMAL PREET KHURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10170/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01055293202508 April 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioner challenged the notice under Section 148, the assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B, and consequential actions for AY 2019-2020, citing the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The Court observed that a co-ordinate bench had previously allowed writ petitions on similar issues in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure. Since an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority in the present case, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to decide the pending appeal in accordance with the precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kamal Preet Khurana, challenged a notice dated March 30, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated March 23, 2024, issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, and all consequential actions for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it should have been issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) as per CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022. The petitioner also stated that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The Revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 30, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid, considering the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vests the exclusive power to issue such notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, is invalid because it was not issued by the NFAC, which has exclusive power to do so as per the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022. - The issue is covered by the judgments of this Court 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). - The petitioner has preferred an appeal, which is pending before the Appellate Authority. Revenue's Contentions: - The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the contentions raised by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10170-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 172 CWP-10170-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-08.04.2025 Kamal Preet Khurana

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 7 (1), Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents 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. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); impugned assessment order dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B 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 above writ petition is covered by the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, passed in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected others (CWP No. 21509-2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority. Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10170-2025 2

3.

Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed 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 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); impugned assessment order dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020, 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.

Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above.

8.

All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 08.04.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:07 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 →