PAVAN KHAITAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14627/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080894202529 May 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in the same terms as the judgment in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others (supra) and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others (supra). In those cases, the writ petitions involving similar issues were allowed, and the respondents were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning appears to be that the notice was indeed issued without proper jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer, aligning with the petitioner's submission and the precedent relied upon. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with the cited judgments, granting liberty to the revenue to proceed as advised after following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pavan Khaita, challenged a notice dated March 21, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The petitioner argued that the notice was erroneously issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who lacked the authority to do so, given the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive powers to issue such notices under the Notification dated March 28/29, 2022. The petitioner relied on a coordinate bench decision in CWP No. 15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others) and connected matters, which allowed similar writ petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid on the grounds that it was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the exclusive powers vested in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) under the Notification dated March 28/29, 2022? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act and the aforementioned Notification). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice was erroneously issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who lacked the jurisdiction to issue it, as the NFAC has exclusive powers under the relevant notification. Reliance was placed on the decision in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH C

158

PAVAN KHAITA

ASSISTANT CO CHANDIGARH

CORAM: HON

HON

Present: Mr.

Mr. Mr.

ANUPINDER S

The (Annexure P-1) i Act, 1961 (here assessment proce 2.

Lear under Section 1 Jurisdictional As in view of the N assessment proce exclusive powers submits that the Jatinder Singh B COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARY

CWP-146

DATE OF DEC

Versus OMMISSIONER OF INCOME H AND OTHERS

N’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPI N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the

Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate for In SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) e petitioner has challenged issued by respondent No.1 under inafter referred to as the ‘Act eedings for Assessment Year 201 rned counsel for the petitioner su 148 of the Act, 1961 has err sessing Officer although he has Notification dated 28/29.03.202 eedings and National Faceless A s to issue notice under Section 1 e coordinate Bench of this Co Bhangu Vs. Union of India and YANA AT CHANDIGARH 27-2025 CISION: 29.05.2025

… Petitioner (s) E TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2

... Respondent(s) INDER SINGH GREWAL AK MANCHANDA e petitioner. g counsel and ncome Tax Department.

the notice dated 21.03.2025 r Section 148 of the Income Tax t, 1961’) and all consequential 18-2019. ubmits that the impugned notice roneously been issued by the no jurisdiction to issue the same 22 which provides for faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has 148 of the Act, 1961. He further ourt in CWP No.15745-2024 - d others and connected matter,

2 5 x l e e e s s r - SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.05.29 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-14627-202

decided on 19.07 of India and ot allowed the writ the respondents t and proceed acco 3.

Ther judgment in the c (supra) and Jasj

Pend

29.05.2025 SwarnjitS

Wheth

Wheth 25

7.2024 as well as CWP No.2150 hers and other connected matte petitions involving similar issue therein to follow the procedure ordingly, if so advised. refore, the petition is disposed case of Jatinder Singh Bhangu it Singh Vs. Union of India and ding application(s), if any, also s

(ANUPIN

(DE

her speaking/reasoned : Yes / her reportable

: Yes /

-2- 09-2023-Jasjit Singh Vs. Union ers, decided on 29.07.2024, had e and liberty had been granted to laid down under the Act, 1961 d of in the same terms as the Vs. Union of India and others d others (supra). stands disposed of. NDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE EEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE No No

n d o

e s SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.05.29 17:48 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 →