NARENDER KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12958/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01071624202507 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's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, with liberty granted 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 co-ordinate benches dealing with the same jurisdictional issue arising from the CBDT circular. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with these precedents, effectively quashing the impugned notices and orders without prejudice to the revenue's right to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Narender Kumar, challenged a notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 30.03.2025 under Section 147, and a demand notice dated 30.03.2025, all pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2020-2021. The petitioner argued 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 revenue, represented by Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 30.03.2025 under Section 147, and the demand notice dated 30.03.2025 for AY 2020-2021 are invalid on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, considering the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices (a question of law). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. 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 Contentions: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions and implicitly accepted the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-12958-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 200 CWP-12958-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-07.05.2025 Narender Kumar ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (1), Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate Ms Mamta Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) ;assessment order dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 30.03.2025 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 disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.05.13 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12958-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961;assessment order dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 30.03.2025 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 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 →