ANJU SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12768/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01069745202506 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the records, noted that the issue raised by the petitioner was identical to those decided by a co-ordinate bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Following these precedents, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited cases, implying the quashing of the impugned notices and orders with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anju Sharma, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 27.03.2025 under Section 147, and a demand notice dated 27.03.2025, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Jind, and others, including the Union of India.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 27.03.2025 under Section 147, and the demand notice dated 27.03.2025 for AY 2020-2021 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders, as the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC. The petitioner relied on judgments from a co-ordinate bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-12768-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 170 CWP-12768-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-06.05.2025 Anju Sharma ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Jind and ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta & Ms. Mamta Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 27.03.2025 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 2025.05.12 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12768-2025 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 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 27.03.2025 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 06.05.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.12 14:16 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 →