KHUSHWANT KAUR MAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11019/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01061646202524 April 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it 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). These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, which concerned the jurisdiction of the issuing authority for Section 148 notices in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction as per the established precedent. The operative direction, following the cited cases, was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Khushwant Kaur Mavi, challenged a notice dated 26.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 18.11.2024 under Section 147, a demand notice, and a penalty show cause notice, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment order dated 18.11.2024, demand notice, and penalty show cause notice for AY 2020-2021 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders. This was based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court 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 learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11019-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 146 CWP-11019-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:-24.04.2025 Khushwant Kaur Mavi ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Khanna, Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate Ms. Mamta Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 18.11.2024 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice and penalty show cause notice dated 18.11.2024 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 disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. Gaurav Arora 2025.04.28 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11019-2025 2 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 18.11.2024 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice and penalty show cause notice dated 18.11.2024 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. (LISA GILL)

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 24.04.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.28 17:49 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 →