SANCHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11304/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01063501202525 April 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by previous judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited precedents, effectively quashing the notice and allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to follow the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sanchi, challenged a notice dated 09.04.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential actions for Assessment Year 2022-2023. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices, citing a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Panchkula. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 09.04.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the notice was issued without jurisdiction, as the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. They relied on judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. 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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11304-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 141 CWP-11304-2025 (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 09.04.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) and consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023. 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-11304-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 09.04.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023 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 →