AJAY GOYAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12193/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01067666202501 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 coordinate bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's argument regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued under Section 148 by an authority other than the NFAC, when the CBDT circular mandates NFAC's exclusive jurisdiction, are liable to be quashed for want of jurisdiction. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying quashing of the impugned notices and orders, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ajay Goyal, challenged various notices and orders issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-2020. These included a notice under Section 148, an order under Section 147, a demand notice under Section 156, and notices under Section 271 AAC(1) and Section 271 AAC. The core of the challenge was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, were the revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent orders and notices for AY 2019-2020 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices (a question of law)? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifies that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on coordinate bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel 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),Section 271 AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-12193-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 166

CWP-12193-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-01.05.2025 Ajay Goyal ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Charkhi Dadri & 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. Ms.Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 21.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 21.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 26.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 03.04.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC of the 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.05.03 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12193-2025 2 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 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 21.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 21.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 26.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 03.04.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020 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 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 →