DEEPAK GOYAL vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17778/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01094440202503 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioner's challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148. The Court observed that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously allowed writ petitions on the same issue in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure. Since the petitioner had already preferred an appeal which was pending before the Appellate Authority, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The Court did not decide the merits of the jurisdictional issue in this writ petition but ensured the pending appeal would be decided in light of the established precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Deepak Goyal, has challenged a notice dated 06.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a show cause notice cum draft assessment order dated 07.02.2024, and an assessment order dated 07.03.2024 for Assessment Year 2018-2019. These orders were issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B and Section 156 of the Act. The petitioner contends that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner has also filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which is pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 06.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent assessment orders for AY 2018-2019 are invalid for want of jurisdiction, given the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power in the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148 and CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such notices. The petitioner relies on judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-17778-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 136 CWP-17778-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-03.07.2025 Deepak Goyal ....Petitioner Vs. C.B.D.T, North Block, New Delhi & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Divya Suri, Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 06.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); show cause notice cum draft assessment order dated 07.02.2024; assessment order dated 07.03.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B along with notice under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2018- 2019. 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 2025.07.10 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17778-2025 (O&M) 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 06.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; show cause notice cum draft assessment order dated 07.02.2024; assessment order dated 07.03.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B along with notice under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019, 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 03.07.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.10 11:23 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 →