KAMLESH RANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12647/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01068224202505 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 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. These prior judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, finding that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention, which was not disputed by the revenue, that the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 conferred exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices upon the NFAC, thereby divesting the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of that power. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued under Section 148 by authorities other than the NFAC, contrary to the CBDT circular, are without jurisdiction. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedents, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kamlesh Rani, challenged notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Bathinda, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. These included a notice under Section 148, an assessment order under Section 147, a demand notice under Section 156, and a penalty show cause notice under Section 271 AAC (1). The petitioner's primary contention 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 in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Bathinda, had the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing such notices? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 specifically states 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 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 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-12647-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 179 CWP-12647-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:-05.05.2025 Kamlesh Rani ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Bathinda & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Urvash Dhugga, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 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. 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not Gaurav Arora 2025.05.07 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12647-2025 2 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 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 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 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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →