RAJEEV SOOD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), LUDHIANA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17972/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01099997202504 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously decided similar issues in the cases of 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). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same grounds raised by the petitioner, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Following these precedents, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the prior judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and granting liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings as per law. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajeev Sood, challenged a notice dated 25.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-2018. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, did not dispute this contention. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh considered the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 25.04.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-2018, is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148 of the Act 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, in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifies that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such notices. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned counsel, 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-17972-2025 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108

CWP-17972-2025 Date of decision: 04.07.2025 Rajeev Sood ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Ludhiana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, 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 25.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961) and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018. 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.07.10 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17972-2025 [2] 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 25.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2017- 2018 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 04.07.2025 Gaurav Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.10 15:06 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 →