AJAY VRAT TYAGI vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13001/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01065060202507 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 issue raised in the present writ petition was covered by previous judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. 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. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying that the impugned notices and orders were set aside due to lack of jurisdiction, with the revenue being permitted to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to do so following the correct procedure. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ajay Vrat Tyagi, challenged a notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 29.03.2025, and a show cause notice dated 08.03.2025, along with consequential actions, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The respondents, including the CBDT, did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 29.03.2025, and the show cause notice dated 08.03.2025, along with consequential actions for AY 2020-2021, are invalid on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction by 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 impugned notices and orders, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, with the NFAC. The petitioner relied on judgments from a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court 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 for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-13001-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 208 CWP-13001-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-07.05.2025 Ajay Vrat Tyagi ....Petitioner Vs. C.B.D.T, North Block New Delhi & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar and Mr. J.S. Sekhon, Advocates 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 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 29.03.2025; show cause notice dated 08.03.2025 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 whole records of the case. Gaurav Arora 2025.05.13 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13001-2025 2 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 29.03.2025; show cause notice dated 08.03.2025 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 →