GARHWAL SABHA REGD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10306/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01057407202509 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. The Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously decided similar issues in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same grounds raised by the petitioner, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Therefore, following the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of those judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the previous rulings, implying that the impugned notices and orders were quashed, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly if they chose to do so.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Garhwal Sabha Regd., filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 30, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated February 25, 2025, a demand notice dated February 25, 2025, and a penalty show cause notice dated February 25, 2025, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential orders were validly issued by the Assessing Officer, considering the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which purportedly grants exclusive jurisdiction to the NFAC for issuing such notices (question of law)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 and subsequent orders, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power in this regard. The petitioner cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as precedents. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 156,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10306-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 149

CWP-10306-2025 Date of Decision:-09.04.2025 GARHWAL SABHA REGD ....Petitioner Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (Exemptions), Circle-2, Chandigarh AND OTHERS

...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. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) impugned assessment order dated 25.02.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 25.02.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 25.02.2025 issued under Section 270A of the 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10306-2025 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 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) impugned assessment order dated 25.02.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 25.02.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 25.02.2025 issued under Section 270A of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 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 09.04.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:08 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 →