ARSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14724/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01081429202521 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 the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, co-ordinate benches had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices. The revenue did not contest this position. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Arsad, challenged several notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Yamuna Nagar, and others for Assessment Year 2020-2021. These included a notice under Section 148, an assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144-B, a demand notice under Section 156, and penalty show cause notices under Section 270A and Section 272A(1)(d). The core of the challenge was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent orders and notices were without jurisdiction, given the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing such notices? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders, relying on 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's argument was supported by judgments from co-ordinate benches of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144-B,Section 156,Section 270A,Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-14724-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 203 CWP-14724-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:-21.05.2025 Arsad

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, 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 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 11.12.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 11.12.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 11.12.2024 issued under Section 270A of the Act, 1961; penalty penalty show cause notice dated 11.12.2024 issued under Section 272 A (1) (d) 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.05.27 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-14724-2025 2 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 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 11.12.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 11.12.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 11.12.2024 issued under Section 270A of the Act, 1961; penalty penalty show cause notice dated 11.12.2024 issued under Section 272 A (1) (d) 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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →