KRISHAN KUMAR MEHTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17441/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01096092202501 July 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 vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. These earlier judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, 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 petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the exclusive power of the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices, a contention not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and granting liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Krishan Kumar Mehta, challenged a notice dated 28.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential actions for Assessment Year 2022-2023. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices, as per a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and other respondents, did not dispute this contention. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.05.2025 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? 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 allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC for issuing such notices. 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-17441-2025 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 145

CWP-17441-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.07.2025 Krishan Kumar Mehta ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (4), Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate 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 28.05.2025 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.07.04 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17441-2025 [2] 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 28.05.2025 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 01.07.2025 Gaurav 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 →