OPEN DOOR WELFARE SOCIETY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13758/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075658202528 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of its previous 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). In those cases, the Court had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which designated the NFAC with exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. The revenue did not contest this point. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Open Door Welfare Society, challenged a notice dated 14.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was directed against the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Jalandhar, and other respondents. 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 revenue did not dispute this contention. The High Court considered previous judgments on similar issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 14.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 stipulating exclusive power of the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-13758-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 142 CWP-13758-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:-28.05.2025 Open Door Welfare Society ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Jalandhar & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura, Mr. Rajiv Sharma, 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 14.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘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 disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Sonia Arora 2025.05.31 16:28 I agree to specified portions of this document

CWP-13758-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 14.02.2024 issued under Section 148 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 28.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Sonia Arora 2025.05.31 16:28 I agree to specified portions 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 →