SIRSA DEPOSITS AND ADVANCES LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11943/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01066708202513 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’s case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh’s case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The High Court found that the issue raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition was covered by these prior judgments. Consequently, the notice dated 30.03.2025 and all consequential actions were set aside, with the revenue permitted to initiate fresh proceedings if they chose to do so, following the correct legal procedure. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sirsa Deposit and Advances Ltd., has challenged a notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-2020, and all consequential actions. The petitioner argues 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, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020, is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argues that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, citing a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. This circular, according to the petitioner, vests the exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC. The petitioner relies 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 learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11943-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 146

CWP-11943-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-13.05.2025 Sirsa Deposit and Advances Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (1), Chandigarh & 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.Vaibhav Gupta, Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020. 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 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019- Gaurav Arora 2025.05.16 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11943-2025 2 2020 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 →