CHINAR FORGE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17743/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01094470202502 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a co-ordinate bench of the same court had previously allowed writ petitions on identical issues in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed if advised. Given that the petitioner in the present case had an appeal pending before the Appellate Authority, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in accordance with the aforementioned judgments. The court did not decide the merits of the jurisdictional challenge itself but directed the pending appeal to be decided in light of the established precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Chinar Forge Ltd., challenged a notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, and consequential actions for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner also stated that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order dated 29.03.2025, are invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which designates the NFAC with exclusive power for such issuances. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-17743-2025 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 121

CWP-17743-2025 Date of decision: 02.07.2025 Chinar Forge Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, DCIT/ACIT Circle 1, Model Town Road Jalandhar & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, 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 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961); assessment order dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority. 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed Gaurav Arora 2025.07.09 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17743-2025 [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 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021, 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. Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above. 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (LISA GILL) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

JUDGE JUDGE 02.07.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.09 10:25 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 →