M/S OMAXE FOREST SPA AND HILLS DEVELOPERS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15826/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01087620202528 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously allowed writ petitions on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure. In the present case, the Court observed that an appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The Court did not decide the validity of the Section 148 notice on merits but directed the appellate process to consider it in light of the precedents. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Omaxe Forest SPA and Hills Developers Ltd., has challenged a notice dated March 30, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-2018. The petitioner argues that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner has also filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which is pending. The respondents, represented by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, have not disputed the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-2018, is invalid on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 conferring exclusive power on the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contends that the notice is invalid as it was not issued by the NFAC, which has exclusive jurisdiction as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner relies on judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue has not disputed the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-15826-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 190 CWP-15826-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:-28.05.2025 M/s Omaxe Forest SPA and Hills Developers Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle I, Gurugram & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Mr. Puneet Aggarwal, Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority. 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not Gaurav Arora 2025.06.06 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-15826-2025 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 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 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. Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above. 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (LISA GILL)

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 28.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.06.06 15:32 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 →