RUCHI JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11329/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01063683202525 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 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cited cases, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench, which had found merit in the argument regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices as per the CBDT circular. The principle established is that notices issued under Section 148 by authorities other than the NFAC, in contravention of the CBDT circular, are without jurisdiction. The operative direction was to allow the petition and grant liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to follow the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ruchi Jain, challenged a notice dated March 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated March 27, 2025, 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 March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices. The revenue did not dispute this contention. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh considered the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order dated March 27, 2025, are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 147 of the Act, 1961, and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which grants exclusive power to 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 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,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11329-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 151 CWP-11329-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:-25.04.2025 Ruchi Jain ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Malerkoktla & 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 27.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice and penalty show cause notice dated 27.03.2025 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 2025.05.01 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11329-2025 2 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 ; assessment order dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice and penalty show cause notice dated 27.03.2025 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 25.04.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.01 14:49 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 →