SANJIV MOHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17858/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01098313202503 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 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, a Coordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which reserves this power exclusively for the NFAC. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 must be issued by the designated authority as per the relevant circulars and provisions of the Act, failing which they are liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sanjiv Mohan, challenged a notice dated June 19, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022, and all consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice. This was based on a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention. The High Court considered the arguments and the case records.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated June 19, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, relying on the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which mandates that the NFAC has exclusive power in this regard. The petitioner cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as covering the present issue. Revenue's contentions: 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-17858-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 158 CWP-17858-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-03.07.2025 Sanjiv Mohan ....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. Vishav Bharti Gupta and Ms. Mamta Gupta, 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 19.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022. 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. 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 19.06.2025 issued Gaurav Arora 2025.07.09 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17858-2025 (O&M) 2 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022 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 03.07.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.09 10:13 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 →