MONIKA CHOUDHARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12662/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01065534202505 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. In those cited cases, a Coordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. 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 precedent set by the Coordinate Bench, which had found the issuing authority to be without jurisdiction in similar circumstances due to the CBDT circular. 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 invalid. The operative direction was to allow the revenue to restart the process if they chose to do so.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Monika Chaudhary, filed a writ petition challenging several notices and an assessment order for AY 2020-2021. These included a notice dated 20.03.2024 under Section 148, an assessment order dated 29.03.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144, a demand notice dated 29.03.2025 under Section 156, and a penalty show cause notice dated 31.03.2025 under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core of the challenge was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, 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 consequential orders for AY 2020-2021 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power for such issuances. The petitioner relied on the 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 144,Section 156,Section 271 AAC (1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-12662-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 184

CWP-12662-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-05.05.2025 Monika Chaudhary

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Faridabad & 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 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) ; assessment order dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 31.03.2025 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 disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.05.07 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12662-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice daetd 31.03.2025 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 →