KAMLESH KUMARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/16394/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01088802202529 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's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the Court had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must comply with the jurisdictional mandates prescribed by CBDT circulars, and non-compliance can render such notices invalid. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kamlesh Kumari, challenged a notice dated 13.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-2020, and all consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer Circle 1 (4) Faridabad and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 13.04.2023 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 29.03.2022 stipulating exclusive power of the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction by an authority not empowered by the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC. The petitioner relied on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023). Revenue's Contentions: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions and implicitly conceded that the issue was covered by the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-16394-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 159 CWP-16394-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-29.05.2025 Kamlesh Kumari ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 1 (4) Faridabad and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Ankur Kaushik and Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 13.04.2023 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. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 13.04.2023 issued Gaurav Arora 2025.06.06 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-16394-2025 (O&M) 2 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 29.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.06.06 15:35 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 →