M/S BHANU INFRABUILD PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15839/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01087514202528 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. The Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by previous judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior decisions. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential actions, subject to the revenue's right to re-initiate proceedings correctly. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Bhanu Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 21.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner also challenged all consequential actions arising from this notice. The core of the challenge was that the authority issuing the notice lacked jurisdiction. This was based on a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The respondents, represented by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax and others, were also party to the proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 21.03.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, considering the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and CBDT notification). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice. This contention was based on the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which, according to the petitioner, vests exclusive power to issue such notices in the NFAC. The petitioner relied on judgments from a Co-ordinate Bench 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 regarding the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-15839-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 196 CWP-15839-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-28.05.2025 M/s Bhanu Infrabuild Pvt. 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 21.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘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. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. Sonia Arora 2025.05.31 16:09 I agree to specified portions of this document

CWP-15839-2025 2 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 21.03.2023 issued under Section 148 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 28.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Sonia Arora 2025.05.31 16:09 I agree to specified portions 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 →