ANKUR NARULA MINISTRY SOCIETY vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1668/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01009887202522 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,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 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the established precedent from co-ordinate benches of the High Court dealing with identical grounds concerning the jurisdiction for issuing Section 148 notices in light of the relevant CBDT circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with these precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential proceedings, subject to the revenue's right to re-initiate the process correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ankur Narula Ministry Society, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 11.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-2016. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by Union of India and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 11.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-2016 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact) Contentions: Assessee: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly states that the NFAC has exclusive power in this regard. The assessee 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: Did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-1668-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 129 CWP-1668-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-22.01.2025 Ankur Narula Ministry Society ....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Gunjeet Singh Syal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 11.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’) and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2015-2016. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.01.24 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1668-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 11.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2015-2016, 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. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 22.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.24 10:51 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 →