SANTOSH EXIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15882/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01085897202528 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 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. In the present case, the Court observed that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of 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 notice on merits but directed the appellate authority to consider it in light of the precedents. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Santosh Exim, challenged a notice dated 30.03.2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 18.03.2023 under Section 147 read with Sections 144/144-B, and a demand notice dated 18.03.2023 under Section 156, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-2019. The challenge was based on a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) had exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. The petitioner also stated that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The respondents, Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Yamuna Nagar & ors., did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid, considering the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law). The assessee contended that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was not issued by the NFAC, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. The assessee further submitted that the issue 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, and that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144-B,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-15882-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 213 CWP-15882-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:-28.05.2025 Santosh Exim ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer,Ward 5, Yamuna Nagar & 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 30.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) ; assessment order dated 18.03.2023 issued under Section 147 read with Sections 144/144-B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 18.03.2023 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2018- 2019. 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.06.06 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-15882-2025 2 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. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 18.03.2023 issued under Section 147 read with Sections 144/144-B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 18.03.2023 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019, 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 15:33 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 →