KAMIL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14716/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01081518202521 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments passed by 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). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue raised in the present petition. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of the aforementioned precedents. The Court noted that the petitioner challenged the notices and orders on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power with the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices. The revenue did not dispute this position. Therefore, the petition was disposed of on the basis of the established legal position from the cited cases.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kamil, challenged a notice dated 26.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 23.01.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144-B, a demand notice dated 23.01.2025 under Section 156, and a penalty show cause notice dated 23.01.2025 under Section 270A, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment and penalty proceedings for AY 2020-2021 are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, as well as the consequential assessment and penalty notices, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. This circular, according to the petitioner, specifically enumerates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on the judgments 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 Contention: 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,Section 147,Section 144-B,Section 156,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-14716-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 202 CWP-14716-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:-21.05.2025 Kamil

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Yamuna Nagar & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura, Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 23.01.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 23.01.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 23.01.2025 issued under Section 270A 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. 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same. Gaurav Arora 2025.05.27 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-14716-2025 2 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 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 23.01.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 23.01.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 23.01.2025 issued under Section 270A of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021, 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 21.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.27 12:51 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 →