RAMA CONSTRUCTIONS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/16759/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01090964202529 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgments passed in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case and Jasjit Singh’s case. In those cases, the Co-ordinate Bench had allowed the 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 if a notice under Section 148 is issued by an authority without the requisite jurisdiction as per prevailing circulars, such a notice is liable to be quashed, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings following the correct procedure. The operative direction was to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of the aforementioned precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rama Construction, challenged a notice dated 10.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022, and all consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, were represented by learned counsel. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard arguments from both sides.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 10.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022 is invalid on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 granting exclusive power to the NFAC? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such notices. The petitioner contended that the issue was covered by previous judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court 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 learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-16759-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 220 CWP-16759-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-29.05.2025 Rama Construction’s ....Petitioner Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Amritsar & others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr.Nikhil Goyal and Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, 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 10.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘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. 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.06.03 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-16759-2025 (O&M) 2 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 10.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022 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 2025.06.03 13:16 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 →