ANUJ PANDEY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18129/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01101014202507 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 previous judgments by a Co-ordinate Bench 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). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds concerning the jurisdiction for issuing Section 148 notices. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning is based on the established precedent from the Co-ordinate Bench on the issue of jurisdiction concerning the NFAC and the relevant CBDT circular. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with the cited judgments, allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they choose to follow the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anuj Pandey, has filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 28.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions for Assessment Year 2022-2023. The petitioner's contention is that the authority issuing the notice lacked jurisdiction, citing a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by learned counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's submissions regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.05.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which purportedly vests exclusive power with the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which designates the NFAC with exclusive power for such issuances. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention and the applicability of previous judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-18129-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 137 CWP-18129-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-07.07.2025 Anuj Pandey ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. M.S. Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 28.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and 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. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.07.11 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18129-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and 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 07.07.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.11 16:03 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 →