AMANDEEP KUMAR BUDHWAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/16772/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01090204202529 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. The Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner was identical to those decided in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of the same Court. In those previous cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Therefore, following the precedent set in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024), the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of those judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential actions, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if permissible under the law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amandeep Kumar Budhwar, challenged a notice dated 06.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential actions, for Assessment Year 2022-2023. 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 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, 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 06.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023 is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifies that the NFAC has exclusive power. The petitioner cited 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) as covering the present issue. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel 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-16772-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 230 CWP-16772-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-29.05.2025 Amandeep Kumar Budhwar ....Petitioner Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Amritsar and 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 06.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023. 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 2025.06.03 13:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-16772-2025 (O&M) 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 06.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023 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 13:15 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 →