PREETI BANSAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11526/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01062460202507 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present writ petition was covered by the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench 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, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying that the impugned notices and orders were set aside, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings following the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Preeti Bansal, challenged a notice dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 19.03.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144-B, a demand notice dated 19.03.2025, and a penalty show cause notice dated 19.03.2025 under Section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2016-2017. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue 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, the assessment order dated 19.03.2025, the demand notice dated 19.03.2025, and the penalty show cause notice dated 19.03.2025 for AY 2016-2017 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 148 and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders, as the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with 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 revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144-B,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11526-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 155 CWP-11526-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-07.05.2025 Preeti Bansal ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga & Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Vibhav Gupta, Standing counsel 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 19.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 19.03.2025 and penalty show cause notice dated 19.03.2025 under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2016-2017. 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.05.12 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11526-2025 2 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 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 19.03.2025 and penalty show cause notice dated 19.03.2025 under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2016-2017 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 07.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.12 14:17 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 →