RENU KAPOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15843/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01087912202528 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 and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. In those cases, a Co-ordinate Bench 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 reasoning was based on the established precedent of Co-ordinate Benches dealing with the jurisdictional issue arising from the CBDT circular concerning the NFAC's exclusive power. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the cited judgments, implying that the impugned notices and orders were set aside, with the revenue permitted to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to do so following the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Renu Kapoor, challenged a notice dated 03.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with an assessment order dated 06.01.2025 under Section 147 read with Sections 144/144-B, a demand notice dated 06.01.2025 under Section 156, and penalty show cause notices dated 06.01.2025 under Sections 270A/271AAC(1)/272A(1)(d) for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 03.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential orders for AY 2020-2021 are invalid on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022 granting exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders because CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022 specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on the judgments 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 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,Section 144,Section 144-B,Section 156,Section 270A,Section 271AAC(1),Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-15843-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 199 CWP-15843-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:-28.05.2025 Renu Kapoor ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Amritsar & 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. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 03.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) ; assessment order dated 06.01.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Sections 144/144-B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 06.01.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 06.01.2025 issued under Sections 270A/271AAC(1)/272A(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 disputed the same. Sonia Arora 2025.05.31 14:45 I agree to specified portions of this document

CWP-15843-2025 2 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 03.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 06.01.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Sections 144/144-B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 06.01.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 06.01.2025 issued under Sections 270A/ 271AAC(1)/ 272A(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 28.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Sonia Arora 2025.05.31 14:45 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 →