M/S OMAXE HERITAGE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15856/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01086356202528 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 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, the Court had allowed similar writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 148, holding that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The principle established is that notices under Section 148 must be issued by the designated authority as per the prevailing circulars, failing which they are liable to be quashed. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notice and consequential actions, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if permissible under law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Omaxe Heritage Private Limited, challenged a notice dated March 20, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-2020, along with all consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, did not dispute this contention. The High Court had previously dealt with similar issues in connected matters.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 20, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020 is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the notice was issued without jurisdiction by an authority not empowered by the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which mandates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. They 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 jurisdiction and 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-15856-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 203 CWP-15856-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-28.05.2025 M/s Omaxe Heritage Private Limited ....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 20.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘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. 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-15856-2025 2 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 20.03.2023 issued under Section 148 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 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 →