SANCHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11263/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01063744202525 April 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on July 19, 2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on July 29, 2024). These earlier judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The Court found that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by these precedents. Consequently, the notice dated March 28, 2025, and consequential actions were set aside, with liberty granted to the revenue to initiate proceedings afresh in accordance with law. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sanchi, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 28, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The petitioner argued that the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Panchkula, lacked the jurisdiction to issue this notice. This contention was based on a CBDT circular/notification dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondent, represented by the Income Tax Officer and Senior Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Panchkula, had the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC for issuing such notices? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the exclusive power granted to the NFAC by the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench 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 learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11263-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 131 CWP-11263-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-25.04.2025 Sanchi ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Panchkula ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vaibhav Narang and Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, 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 instant writ petition is to notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) and consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022. 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 2025.05.03 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11263-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022 issued by respondent, 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 25.04.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.03 11:06 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 →