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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/16124/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01089729202528 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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 Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, the Co-ordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, holding that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notice and consequential actions, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings in accordance with law. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. The Court did not leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Omaxe Ltd., challenged a notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-2015. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, did not dispute this contention. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh considered the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2014-2015, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner contended that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, as the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such notices. The petitioner relied on the judgments of 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-16124-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 265 CWP-16124-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-28.05.2025 M/s Omaxe 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 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2014-2015. 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-16124-2025 2 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2014-2015 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 →