HARISH NARANG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15144/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01083587202523 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on July 19, 2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on July 29, 2024). These previous judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The court found that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by these precedents. Consequently, the notice dated March 26, 2024, the assessment order dated January 27, 2025, and the demand notice dated January 27, 2025, were set aside, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if advised, following the correct procedure. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harish Narang, challenged a notice dated March 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated January 27, 2025, under Section 147, and a demand notice dated January 27, 2025, for Assessment Year 2017-2018. 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 Section 148 notices. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer 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, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment and demand notices for AY 2017-2018 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which grants exclusive power to the NFAC. The petitioner relies on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. 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,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-15144-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 138 CWP-15144-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-23.05.2025 Harish Narang ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Karnal & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate Ms Mamta Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, 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 27.01.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 27.01.2025 and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.05.28 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-15144-2025 2 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 27.01.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 27.01.2025 and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018 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 23.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.28 14:29 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 →