TWINKLE PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17007/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01091311202501 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously decided similar issues in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case, where writ petitions were allowed on the same grounds. In those cases, liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Following these precedents, 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 granting liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to do so, following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Twinkle Papers Private Limited, challenged a notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana-1, did not dispute the petitioner's contention. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh considered the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022, is without jurisdiction, considering the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid as the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The petitioner cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as precedents. 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-17007-2025 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 113

CWP-17007-2025 Date of decision: 01.07.2025 Twinkle Papers Private Limited ...Petitioner Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana-1 & ors ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 31.03.2025 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 2025.07.04 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17007-2025 [2] 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.03.2025 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 01.07.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.04 16:01 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 →