SUBHASH CHANDRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18130/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01101013202507 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 and Jasjit Singh's case. These prior judgments had allowed writ petitions on the same issue, finding that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction based on the relevant circulars. The High Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the co-ordinate benches in the cited cases, which addressed the jurisdictional issue arising from the CBDT circular concerning the NFAC's exclusive power. The principle established is that notices issued under Section 148 by authorities other than the designated NFAC, as per the circulars, are invalid. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the precedents, allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to follow the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Subhash Chandra, 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 contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted 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 contention. The High Court perused the records and heard the parties.

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 on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 granting exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's Contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power in the NFAC. The assessee relied on the judgments 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 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-18130-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 138 CWP-18130-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-07.07.2025 Subhash Chandra ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (4), 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-18130-2025 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 →