ANJU BALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14619/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01065038202521 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioner challenged notices and orders for AY 2020-2021 based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The Court referred to its own previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case, where similar writ petitions were allowed on the same issue. In those cases, liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. Since an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority in the present case, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to decide the pending appeal in line with the precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anju Bala, challenged several notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (3), Abohar, and others for Assessment Year 2020-2021. These included a notice under Section 148, an order under Section 147, a demand notice under Section 156, and a notice under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the High Court and that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Officer are invalid in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The issue is covered by the judgments of this 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). - The petitioner has preferred an appeal which is pending before the Appellate Authority. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 156,Section 271 AAC (1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-14619-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 188

CWP-14619-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-21.05.2025 Anju Bala ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (3), Abohar & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal and Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mrs. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority. Gaurav Arora 2025.05.26 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-14619-2025 2 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 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021, 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. Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above. 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 →