GLENVIEW VILLAS KASAULI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OSD CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/16160/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01088510202528 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioner challenged the notice under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings for AY 2021-2022 based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC. The Court referred to its own previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, where similar writ petitions were allowed on the same issue. In those cases, liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure if advised. Since an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority in the present case, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. No specific finding was given on the validity of the notices themselves, but the appeal was to be decided in light of the precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Glenview Villas, Kasauli, challenged several notices and orders related to Assessment Year (AY) 2021-2022. These included a notice dated 04.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; an assessment order dated 26.03.2025 under Section 144 read with Section 147; a demand notice dated 26.03.2025 under Section 156; and penalty notices dated 28.03.2025 under Sections 274 read with Section 270A and Section 274 read with Section 271AAD(1)(ii). The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the High Court and that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent assessment and penalty proceedings for AY 2021-2022 are valid, considering the circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 of the CBDT which states that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by the 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 is pending before the Appellate Authority. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144,Section 147,Section 156,Section 274,Section 270A,Section 271AAD(1)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-16160-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 289 CWP-16160-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-28.05.2025 Glenview Villas, Kasauli ....Petitioner Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle I, Chd & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Salil Kapoor and Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 04.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’); assessment order dated 26.03.2025 issued under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 26.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty notices dated 28.03.2025 issued under Sections 274 read with Section 270A of the Act, 1961 and Section 274 read with Section 271 AAD (1) (ii) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022. 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. 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not Gaurav Arora 2025.06.06 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-16160-2025 2 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 04.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 26.03.2025 issued under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 26.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty notices dated 28.03.2025 issued under Sections 274 read with Section 270A of the Act, 1961 and Section 274 read with Section 271 AAD (1) (ii) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022, 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 15:32 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 →