RAJIV GOEL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15336/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084490202526 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 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). These prior judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the established precedent from the Co-ordinate Bench and the non-dispute by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with these precedents, implying that the impugned notices and orders were set aside for procedural irregularity, with the revenue having the option to re-initiate proceedings correctly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajiv Goel, challenged a notice dated 29.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 29.03.2024 under Section 147, and a demand notice dated 29.03.2025, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the precedent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order and demand notice are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices (question of law). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders for AY 2020-2021, citing the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench 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). Revenue's contentions: The learned counsel 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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-15336-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 194 CWP-15336-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-26.05.2025 Rajiv Goel ....Petitioner Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Faridabad & 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. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 29.03.2025 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. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.05.29 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-15336-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 29.03.2025 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 26.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.29 18:34 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 →