ISHAAN MITTAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12877/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01066871202507 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgments passed by 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). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The reasoning is based on the established precedent of the High Court on the jurisdictional issue concerning the issuance of Section 148 notices by authorities other than the NFAC, as per the CBDT circular. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with the cited judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notices and orders with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ishaan Mittal, challenged a notice dated 31.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 28.03.2025 under Section 147, a demand notice dated 28.03.2025 under Section 156, and a penalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 under Section 271 AAC(1), all pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which 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 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 28.03.2025 under Section 147, the demand notice dated 28.03.2025 under Section 156, and the penalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 under Section 271 AAC(1) for AY 2020-2021 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction in the issuing authority, in light of CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022. (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 stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 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)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-12877-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 179 CWP-12877-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-07.05.2025 Ishaan Mittal ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Phagwara & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga & Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 31.03.2024 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 and penalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 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 2025.05.13 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12877-2025 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 31.03.2024 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 and penalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 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 07.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.13 12:04 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 →