BHARTI SEHGAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10394/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01056837202509 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 raised by the petitioner was covered by the 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 on similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents, implying that the notice under Section 148 was quashed, but the revenue could re-initiate proceedings if they followed the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bharti Sehgal, challenged a notice dated March 27, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that a CBDT circular/notification dated March 29, 2022, specifically grants the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) exclusive power to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Karnal, and others, did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 27, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2018-2019, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power with the NFAC? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction as per the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which mandates that only the NFAC has the exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on the judgments 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 Contentions: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10394-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 168

CWP-10394-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.04.2025 BHARTI SEHGAL ....Petitioner Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL KARNAL 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. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “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 disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10394-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 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 09.04.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:09 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 →