MAHALUXMI ENTERPRISES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10245/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01056667202508 April 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present writ petition was covered by previous judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of the same court. Specifically, the court referred to the decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent, implying a procedural correction for the revenue.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahaluxmi Enterprises, challenged several notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Malerkotla, and others for Assessment Year 2017-2018. These included a notice under Section 148, an order under Section 148A(d), an assessment order under Section 144 read with Section 144B, a notice of demand under Section 156, and penalty notices under Section 274 read with Sections 271AAC(1) and 270A. The core of the challenge was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue department did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent orders and notices for AY 2017-2018 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of CBDT Circular/Notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders. This contention was based on the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner relied on judgments from a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 156,Section 274,Section 271AAC(1),Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10245-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 189 CWP-10245-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-08.04.2025 Mahaluxmi Enterprises ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Malerkotla & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Anurag Sharma and Mr. Kapish Chawla, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent-department. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 28.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 28.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 20.03.2025 issued under Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 20.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty notices dated 20.03.2025 under Section 274 read with Section 271 AAC (1) and 270 A and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018. 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 28.02.2024 issued Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10245-2025 2 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 28.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 20.03.2025 issued under Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 20.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty notices dated 20.03.2025 under Section 274 read with Section 271 AAC (1) and 270 A and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018, 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 →