TARUN JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, MALERKOTLA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14183/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01078118202516 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's case (decided on July 19, 2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on July 29, 2024). In those cases, the Court had allowed similar writ petitions, holding that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contrary to the CBDT circular of March 29, 2022. 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 exclusive power vested with the NFAC as per the CBDT circular. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 issued by authorities other than the NFAC, in contravention of the CBDT circular, are without jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tarun Jain, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 29, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 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 had previously dealt with similar issues in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh.

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 on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction in light of the CBDT circular 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 dated March 29, 2022, which mandates that the NFAC has exclusive power in this regard. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench 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-14183-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 132 CWP-14183-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-16.05.2025 Tarun Jain

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Malerkotla & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Harsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.05.21 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-14183-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated notice dated 29.03.2025 issued 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 16.05.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.21 10:37 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →