KANTA ARORA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10870/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01060263202522 April 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 issued by authorities other than the NFAC, in contravention of the CBDT circular, are without jurisdiction. The operative direction is to dispose of the writ petition in line with the precedents, allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they choose to follow the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kanta Arora, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-2017. The petitioner contended that the authority issuing the notice lacked jurisdiction, citing a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Faridabad, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-2017 is without jurisdiction in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vests the exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC. 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 contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention and implicitly conceded that the issue was covered by the cited precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10870-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 157 CWP-10870-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-22.04.2025 Kanta Arora ....Petitioner Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) for AY 2016-2017. 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.05.07 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10870-2025 2 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 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2016-2017, 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. (LISA GILL) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 22.04.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.07 14:35 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 →