SUSHIL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12636/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01067610202505 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments previously 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 referred cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds concerning jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the precedent, implying that the impugned notices and orders were set aside due to the jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioner and not disputed by the revenue. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sushil, challenged a notice dated 29.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 30.03.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144, a demand notice dated 30.03.2025 under Section 156, and a penalty show cause notice dated 01.04.2025 under Section 271 AAC(1), all pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-2021. 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, Ward 2, Rohtak, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the precedent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 30.03.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144, the demand notice dated 30.03.2025 under Section 156, and the penalty show cause notice dated 01.04.2025 under Section 271 AAC(1) are invalid for want of jurisdiction in the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 148 and the CBDT circular). 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 allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices. The petitioner relied 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 respondents (Union of India) did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 156,Section 271 AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-12636-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 174

CWP-12636-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-05.05.2025 Sushil

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Rohtak & ors. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) ; assessment order dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and penalty show cause notice dated 01.04.2025 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 . 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same. Gaurav Arora 2025.05.07 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12636-2025 2 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 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and penalty show cause notice dated 01.04.2025 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 05.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.07 14:39 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →