MANVI TAYAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4) GURGAON AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11350/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01063528202525 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 its previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior decisions. The court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, and the operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manvi Tayal, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 30, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-2023, and all consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice, citing a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Gurgaon, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 30, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority? (Question of law turning on Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power in the NFAC. The assessee 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 revenue 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-11350-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 156 CWP-11350-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:-25.04.2025 Manvi Tayal ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4) , Gurgaon & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all 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 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.03.2025 issued Gaurav Arora 2025.05.01 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11350-2025 2 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023, 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 15:03 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 →