AMIT KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11097/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01060878202524 April 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments previously passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (decided on 29.07.2024). These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was that the revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the jurisdiction based on the CBDT circular. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. The issue of jurisdiction was decided in favour of the assessee based on precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amit Kumar, challenged a notice dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 06.03.2025 under Section 147, a demand notice, and a penalty show cause notice, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-2020. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order dated 06.03.2025 under Section 147, are invalid for want of jurisdiction, considering the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 147 of the Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which designates the NFAC with exclusive power under Section 148. The petitioner relies 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11097-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 170 CWP-11097-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-24.04.2025 Amit Kumar ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Karnal & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate Mr. Hunny Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel (Through VC) with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 06.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice and penalty show cause notice dated 06.03.2025 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020. 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 2025.04.28 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11097-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 06.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice and penalty show cause notice dated 06.03.2025 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019- 2020 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 17:50 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 →