THE AMBALA CO OP MARKETING CUM PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15855/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01087898202528 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 present writ petition in terms of the judgments passed by 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 issues, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench concerning the jurisdictional issue arising from the CBDT circular. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with the aforementioned judgments, implying that the revenue may have to re-initiate proceedings following the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Ambala Coop Marketing cum Processing Society Ltd., challenged a notice dated 09.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated 09.04.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Ambala & ors., did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 09.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 09.04.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, for AY 2019-2020, are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC. Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice and order under challenge, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner relied on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The revenue 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,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-15855-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 202 CWP-15855-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:-28.05.2025 The Ambala Coop Marketing cum Processing Society Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Ambala & 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. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 09.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 09.04.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020. 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-15855-2025 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 09.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 09.04.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020, 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 →