ORCHIDS DIAMOND TOOLS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11687/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01064533202513 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 raised by the petitioner was covered by previous judgments of 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 grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, if they 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 line with the precedent, implying the notice was likely quashed with liberty to the revenue to re-issue if legally permissible. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Orchids Diamond Tools Pvt. Ltd., has filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 22.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential actions for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The petitioner's primary contention is that the authority issuing the notice lacked jurisdiction, citing a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Union of India, did not dispute this contention. The High Court considered the records and arguments presented by 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 2018-2019 is invalid on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 conferring exclusive power on the NFAC to issue such notices? 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/notification dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power in the NFAC for issuing such notices. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11687-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 140

CWP-11687-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-13.05.2025 Orchids Diamond Tools 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 2018-2019. 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 2025.05.16 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11687-2025 2 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2018- 2019 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 13.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.16 16:39 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 →