PARAMJIT KAUR vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17696/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01097488202501 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, disposing of it in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh’s case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, with liberty granted 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 allegedly vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC. The revenue did not dispute this. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the aforementioned precedents, implying that the impugned notices and orders were quashed, with the revenue having the option to reinitiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Paramjit Kaur, challenged several notices and orders related to her assessment for AY 2019-2020. These included a notice dated 15.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 15.03.2024 under Section 148A(d), an enquiry dated 22.02.2024 under Section 148A(b), and an assessment order dated 29.01.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144. The core of the challenge was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The Income Tax Department was the respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 15.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential order dated 15.03.2024 under Section 148A(d) of the Act, 1961, are without jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 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 regarding the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-17696-2025 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 205

CWP-17696-2025 Date of decision: 01.07.2025 Paramjit Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Department through ITO (OSD) Ward, Mohali & anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Nisha Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 15.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961); order dated 15.03.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961; enquiry dated 22.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A (b) of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 29.01.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.07.04 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17696-2025 [2] the same. 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 15.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 15.03.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961; enquiry dated 22.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A (b) of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 29.01.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019- 2020 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 16:09 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 →