ANUPAMA MITTAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13061/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01073058202514 May 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the petition in the same terms as its previous judgments 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), decided on 19.07.2024 and 29.07.2024 respectively. In those cases, the writ petitions involving similar issues were allowed, and the respondents were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The principle established is that notices under Section 148 should be issued by the appropriate authority as per the prevailing faceless assessment scheme. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with the cited precedents, granting liberty to the revenue to proceed as advised after following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anupama Mittal, challenged a notice dated 10.03.2023 issued by the respondent No. 2 (Jurisdictional Assessing Officer) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The petitioner argued that the notice was erroneously issued by the Assessing Officer, who lacked jurisdiction. This is because the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive powers to issue notices under Section 148, as per the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022 concerning faceless assessment proceedings. The petitioner relied on a coordinate bench decision in CWP No.15745-2024 - Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 10.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid due to being issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), in light of the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022 governing faceless assessment proceedings? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act and the aforementioned Notification). Contentions: Assessee: The impugned notice is erroneous and without jurisdiction as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022 mandates that the NFAC has exclusive powers to issue notices under Section 148 in faceless assessment proceedings. Relied on CWP No.15745-2024 - Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others. Revenue: No specific contentions recorded for the revenue in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH C 134

ANUPAMA MIT

INCOME TAX

CORAM: HON

HON

Present: Mr.

Mr.

Ms.

ANUPINDER S

The (Annexure P-4) i Act, 1961 (here assessment proce

2.

Lear under Section 1 Jurisdictional As in view of the N assessment proce exclusive powers submits that the Jatinder Singh B COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARY

CWP-13061-202

DATE OF DEC

TTAL

Versus OFFICER AND OTHERS N’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPI N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the p

Varun Issar, Senior Standing co Pridhi Sandhu, Senior Standing SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) petitioner has challenged issued by respondent No.2 under inafter referred to as the ‘Act eedings for Assessment Year 202 rned counsel for the petitioner su 148 of the Act, 1961 has err sessing Officer although he has Notification dated 28/29.03.202 CISION: 14.05.2025

… Petitioner (s)

... Respondent(s) INDER SINGH GREWAL AK MANCHANDA petitioner. ounsel for Income Tax and counsel for Income Tax.

the notice dated 10.03.2023 r Section 148 of the Income Tax t, 1961’) and all consequential 21-2022. ubmits that the impugned notice roneously been issued by the no jurisdiction to issue the same 22 which provides for faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has 148 of the Act, 1961. He further ourt in CWP No.15745-2024 - d others and connected matter,

) 3 x l e e e s s r - SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.05.15 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13061-202 her speaking/reasoned : Yes / her reportable

: Yes /

-2- 09-2023-Jasjit Singh Vs. Union 2025.05.15 09:22 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 →