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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13871/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01073973202515 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 the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on July 19, 2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on July 29, 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 established precedent from the Co-ordinate Bench that addressed the jurisdictional issue concerning the issuance of Section 148 notices in light of the NFAC's exclusive powers as per the relevant CBDT notification. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued by authorities other than the designated NFAC, when such exclusive power is vested, are liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rani Mahajan, challenged a notice dated March 29, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential actions for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that a CBDT circular/notification dated March 29, 2022, specifically enumerated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Union of India, did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 29, 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 March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, citing the CBDT circular/notification dated March 29, 2022, which states that the NFAC has exclusive power. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High 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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-13871-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 138 CWP-13871-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-15.05.2025 Rani 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 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 2025.05.21 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13871-2025 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 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 →