ADITYA GOEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17824/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01098532202503 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 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. In the present case, since an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority, the 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 itself but directed the appellate authority to consider it in light of the precedents. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aditya Goel, challenged a notice dated 26.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 23.03.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144b, and a demand notice dated 23.03.2025 under Section 156, all pertaining to 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 with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner also stated that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment and demand orders for AY 2020-2021 are invalid on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which vests exclusive power with the NFAC. Assessee's contentions: 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 specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power. The petitioner also submitted that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority and cited judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contentions: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

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-17824-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 142 CWP-17824-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-03.07.2025 Aditya Goel ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7 (1), Ludhiana, Punjab & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Anurag Sharma, Advocates 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 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144b of the Act, 1961 along with notice of demand dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 156 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 2025.07.14 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17824-2025 (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 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144b of the Act, 1961 along with notice of demand dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 156 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 03.07.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.14 16:28 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 →