SHIVAHARDWELL INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11527/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01064879202501 May 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 vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the precedent established by the Co-ordinate Bench concerning the jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioner. The operative direction was to dispose of the present petition in line with the aforementioned judgments, implying that the impugned notices and orders were set aside, with the revenue having the option to re-initiate proceedings following the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shivahardwell Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 30.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 28.03.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144, a demand notice dated 28.03.2025 under Section 156, and a penalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 under Section 270A, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 28.03.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144, the demand notice dated 28.03.2025 under Section 156, and the penalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 under Section 270A for AY 2020-2021 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022? Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vests the exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, with the NFAC. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 156,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11527-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 145

CWP-11527-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-01.05.2025 Shivahardwell Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Asstt. Commissinoer of Income Tax, Circle I, Faridabad & ors. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates, 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 instant writ petition is to notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) ; assessment order dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and penalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 270 A of the Act, 1961 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.05.03 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11527-2025 2 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 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and penalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 270 A of the Act, 1961 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 01.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.03 11:08 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 →