PANKAJ JAIN vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18481/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01102528202507 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, with liberty granted 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 established precedent of the Co-ordinate Bench concerning the jurisdictional issue arising from the CBDT circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the present petition in line with those precedents, implying that the notices were quashed, but the revenue could re-issue them following the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pankaj Jain, challenged notices dated 18.04.2024 (under Section 148) and 23.05.2025 (under Section 142(1)) issued for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar, did not dispute the petitioner's submissions regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 18.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential actions are liable to be quashed on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power with the NFAC? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power in this regard. The petitioner relied on the judgments of 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). Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-18481-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 192 CWP-18481-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-07.07.2025 Pankaj Jain

....Petitioner Vs. Principal Commissione of Income Tax, Jalandhar & anr.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Rishabh Kapoor and Ms. Stuti Singla, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Nitika Garg, Advocate for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 18.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); notice dated 23.05.2025 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021. 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 2025.07.11 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18481-2025 (O&M) 2 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 18.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 23.05.2025 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020- 2021 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 →