PUNEET BATRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13444/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01074476202512 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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 vs. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024) decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (CWP No. 21509-2023) decided on 29.07.2024. These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions 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 was based on the petitioner's contention, which was not disputed by the revenue, that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022, assigning exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents, implying quashing of the impugned notices and orders, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Puneet Batra, challenged a notice dated 28.12.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 07.03.2025 under Section 147, and a demand notice dated 07.03.2025 for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Ludhiana, did not dispute this contention. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana considered the submissions and the records.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.12.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 07.03.2025 under Section 147, and the demand notice dated 07.03.2025 for AY 2021-2022 are invalid on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 147 of the Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders, citing the CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of this 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 Contentions: The learned counsel appearing 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-13444-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 172 CWP-13444-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-12.05.2025 Puneet Batra ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Ludhiana & 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. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 28.12.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 07.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 07.03.2025 and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022. 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 2025.05.16 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13444-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28.12.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 07.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 07.03.2025 and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022 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 12.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.16 16:31 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 →