HARVINDER KAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10596/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01057718202509 April 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the records, noted that a Co-ordinate Bench of the same Court had previously decided identical issues in the cases of 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). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Following these precedents, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the prior rulings, implying the quashing of the impugned notices and order with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harvinder Kaur, challenged several notices and an order related to Assessment Year 2020-2021. These included a notice dated 22.03.2024 under Section 148, an order dated 11.02.2025 under Section 147, a demand notice dated 11.02.2025 under Section 156, a notice dated 10.02.2025 under Section 272A(1)(d), and a notice dated 11.02.2025 under Section 270A, along with all consequential actions. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent actions, are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power with the NFAC? (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 148, 147, 156, 272A(1)(d), and 270A of the Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and order, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 156,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10596-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 201

CWP-10596-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.04.2025 Harvinder Kaur ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Ambala Cantt & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal and Mr. Yash Gilhotra, 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 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 11.02.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 11.02.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 10.02.2025 issued under Section 272 A (1) (d) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 11.02.2025 issued under Section 270 A 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 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10596-2025 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 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 11.02.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 11.02.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 10.02.2025 issued under Section 272 A (1) (d) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 11.02.2025 issued under Section 270 A 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 16:09 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 →