DHANVI INVESTMENT CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11676/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01064538202507 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It noted that a co-ordinate bench of the same court had previously decided similar issues in the cases of 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 judgments, the writ petitions were allowed, and liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dhanvi Investments Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., challenged a notice dated 22.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-2016. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, were represented by their counsel. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh considered the submissions of both parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 22.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-2016 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? The assessee contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly states that the NFAC has exclusive power for such issuances. The revenue, represented by its counsel, did not dispute the assessee's contention regarding the applicability of prior judgments on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11676-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 164

CWP-11676-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-07.05.2025 Dhanvi Investments Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income, Central Circle I, Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal and Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr.Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 22.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2015-2016. 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 22.03.2025 issued Gaurav Arora 2025.05.12 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11676-2025 2 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2015- 2016 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 →