SHRI VISHWE TEXTILE MILLS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10341/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01056722202509 April 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by previous judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act if advised. Since an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority in the present case, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The Court did not decide the validity of the notice on merits but directed the pending appeal to be decided in light of the precedents. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Vishwe Textile Mills, challenged a notice dated March 30, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated January 15, 2024, under Section 147 read with Section 144B, and a demand notice dated January 15, 2024, under Section 156, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-2017. The petitioner argued that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices as per a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022. The petitioner also stated that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid, considering the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which enumerates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such notices? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: - The notice under Section 148 is invalid because it was not issued by the NFAC, which has exclusive power as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. - The issue is covered by the judgments of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. - An appeal has been preferred and is pending before the Appellate Authority. Revenue's contentions: - The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10341-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 153

CWP-10341-2025 Date of Decision:-09.04.2025 SHRI VISHWE TEXTILE MILLS ....Petitioner Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, AMBALA & 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. 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 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); impugned assessment order dated 15.01.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 15.01.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2016- 2017. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the above 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority. 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-10341-2025 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 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; impugned assessment order dated 15.01.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 15.01.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2016-2017, 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. Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above. 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 →