ASHWANI KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13641/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01074951202522 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously allowed writ petitions on similar issues in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure. Since an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority in the present case, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The reasoning is based on the principle that similar issues have been decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court, and the pending appeal should be adjudicated in light of these precedents. The operative direction is to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal as per the cited judgments.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ashwani Kumar, challenged a notice dated March 30, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated March 25, 2022, issued under Sections 147, 144, and 144-B of the Act, and a notice dated December 10, 2024, under Section 226(3) of the Act, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-2014. The petitioner argued that the issues were covered by previous judgments of the High Court and that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent assessment order are invalid in light of CBDT circular/notification dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The issue is covered by the judgments of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. - An appeal has been preferred by the petitioner and is pending before the Appellate Authority. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144-B,Section 226(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-13641-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 158 CWP-13641-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:-22.05.2025 Ashwani Kumar ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kurukshetra & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Dr. Rishi Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 30.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 25.03.2022 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144-B of the Act, 1961; notice dated 10.12.2024 issued under Section 226 (3) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2013-2014. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority. 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same. Gaurav Arora 2025.05.27 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13641-2025 2 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 30.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 25.03.2022 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144-B of the Act, 1961; notice dated 10.12.2024 issued under Section 226 (3) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2013-2014, 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. Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above. 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (LISA GILL)

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 22.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.27 12:52 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 →