MONIKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11903/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01067522202506 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in view of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vested exclusive power with the NFAC. The High Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned precedents, implying a quashing of the impugned notices and orders, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Monika, filed a writ petition challenging various notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Faridabad, and others for Assessment Year 2020-2021. These included a notice under Section 148 dated March 20, 2024, an order under Section 147 dated March 29, 2025, a demand notice under Section 156 dated March 29, 2025, and a notice under Section 271 AAC (1) dated March 30, 2025. The petitioner's primary contention was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent consequential actions for AY 2020-2021 are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders. This was based on the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which, according to the petitioner, specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 156,Section 271 AAC (1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11903-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 162 CWP-11903-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-06.05.2025 Monika

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Faridabad and ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Mr. Balwinder Singh, 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 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) 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 . Gaurav Arora 2025.05.12 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11903-2025 2 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 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) 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 06.05.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.12 14:16 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 →