SOHAN LAL HUF THROUGH ITS KARTA DR SOHAN LAL GOYAL vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10277/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01056976202508 April 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, allowed the writ petition. The Court found that the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the issuing authority, based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, was covered by these previous decisions. Consequently, the notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, was set aside. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, for the relevant period, should be issued by the designated authority (NFAC) as per the CBDT circular, and failure to do so renders the notice invalid.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sohan Lal HUF through its Karta Dr. Sohan Lal Goyal, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The petitioner argued that the authority issuing the notice lacked jurisdiction, citing a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The notice is invalid as the issuing authority lacks jurisdiction, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which designates the NFAC with exclusive power. The petitioner relies on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's submissions or the applicability of the cited precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10277-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 194 CWP-10277-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-08.04.2025 Sohan Lal HUF through its Karta Dr. Sohan Lal Goyal ....Petitioner Vs. C.B.D.T, New Delhi & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Brijeshwar Vashisht, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) for AY 2021-2022. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10277-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2021-2022, on the ground that he 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 →