GHANSHYAM GOEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13810/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01076585202521 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 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. 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 that the NFAC has exclusive jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148, as per the relevant CBDT notification. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued by authorities other than the NFAC, in contravention of the CBDT's exclusive jurisdiction directive, are liable to be quashed. The operative direction is the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential actions, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ghanshyam Goel, challenged a notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential actions for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice, citing a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, did not dispute this contention. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022 is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CBDT notification dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which grants exclusive power to the NFAC. The petitioner relies on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The revenue's counsel 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-13810-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 181 CWP-13810-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-21.05.2025 Ghanshyam Goel ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, 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 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) 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 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 29.03.2025 issued Gaurav Arora 2025.05.26 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13810-2025 2 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 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 21.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.26 14:38 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 →