HARBANS LAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10177/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01055165202508 April 2025Bench: 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 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cited cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue raised by the petitioner. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the precedent judgments, implying that the impugned notices and orders were set aside, with liberty to the revenue to reinitiate proceedings if they chose to do so following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harbans Lal, challenged several orders and notices pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-2019. These included a notice dated 07.04.2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; an assessment order dated 27.02.2024 under Section 147 read with Section 144-B; a demand notice dated 27.02.2024 under Section 156; and a penalty order dated 24.07.2024 under Section 271 AAC (1). The core of the challenge was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward, Rajpura, and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 07.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent orders (assessment, demand, and penalty) for AY 2018-2019 are invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice and subsequent orders, citing the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High 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). Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144-B,Section 156,Section 271 AAC (1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10177-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 174 CWP-10177-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-08.04.2025 Harbans Lal

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward, Rajpura & 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. Saurabh Kapoor , Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 07.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”); impugned assessment order dated 27.02.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 27.02.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty order dated 24.07.2024 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10177-2025 2 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 07.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; impugned assessment order dated 27.02.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 27.02.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty order dated 24.07.2024 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019 , 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 16:07 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 →