VISHAL MAHAJAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, AMRITSAR AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18096/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01098922202504 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, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on July 19, 2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on July 29, 2024). The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT Circular/Notification dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148. The Revenue did not dispute this. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vishal Mahajan, challenged a notice dated March 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-2023, along with all consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to CBDT Circular/Notification dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The Revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh considered the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT Circular/Notification dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices in the NFAC? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction because the CBDT Circular/Notification dated March 29, 2022, specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of the same Court in 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). Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel appearing 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-18096-2025 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 145

CWP-18096-2025 Date of decision: 04.07.2025 Vishal Mahajan ...Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Amritsar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. J.S. Bhasin, Advocate (Through VC) with Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 26.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961) and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023. 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.07.10 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18096-2025 [2] 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 26.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2022- 2023 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 →