ANKUR DAVESAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10141/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01056320202508 April 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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's case and Jasjit Singh's case. These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, holding that the notices issued by authorities other than the NFAC were invalid. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices as per the CBDT circular. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by an authority other than the NFAC, are without jurisdiction, following the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedents, with liberty to the revenue to proceed afresh. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ankur Davesar, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The respondent, Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Mandi Gobindgarh, was represented by counsel. The procedural history involves the petitioner challenging the notice and consequential actions. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction by the Income Tax Officer, as the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, mandates that only the NFAC has the exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench 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). Revenue's contentions: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10141-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 160 CWP-10141-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-08.04.2025 Ankur Davesar ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Mandi Gobindgarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021. 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 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 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 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 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10141-2025 2 2020-2021 on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction 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 08.04.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:06 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 →