MEGHA MAHAJAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR 1 AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13865/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01073974202515 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's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cited cases, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, which was the lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority for Section 148 notices. The Court granted 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 precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench, which found merit in the argument regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the NFAC as per the relevant circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the earlier judgments, allowing the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if they chose to do so following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Megha Mahajan, challenged a notice dated March 28, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-2023. The petitioner also challenged all consequential actions stemming from this notice. The core of the challenge was that the authority issuing the notice lacked jurisdiction. This was based on a CBDT circular/notification dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The respondents, including the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar I, were represented by the Union of India.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 28, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023 is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, citing the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing such notices. The petitioner relied on the 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). 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-13865-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 136 CWP-13865-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-15.05.2025 Megha Mahajan ....Petitioner Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar I & anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Ms. Vidhi Malhotra and Mr. Vardaan Malhotra, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mrs. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023. 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 28.03.2025 issued Gaurav Arora 2025.05.21 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13865-2025 2 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023 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 enumera ted 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 15.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.21 10:36 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 →