MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14225/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01078974202519 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present writ petition is covered by the judgments of 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 grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited cases, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential actions, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly if advised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., challenged a notice dated March 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, represented by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2018-2019 is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of CBDT Circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power with the NFAC. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, relying on the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which designates the NFAC with exclusive power. The petitioner cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as precedents covering this issue. 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-14225-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 181 CWP-14225-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:-19.05.2025 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle-II, Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura, 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 26.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019. 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 26.03.2025 issued Gaurav Arora 2025.05.22 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-14225-2025 2 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019, 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 19.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.22 17:17 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 →