DAVINDER KUMAR GARG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18595/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01102380202508 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 the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cited cases, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power in the NFAC. The judgments granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the present writ petition in line with these precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential actions. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Davinder Kumar Garg, challenged a notice dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondent, Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Muktsar Punjab, did not dispute the petitioner's submissions regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020 is without jurisdiction in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which designates the NFAC with exclusive power to issue such notices? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which grants exclusive power to the NFAC. The petitioner cited 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) as covering the present issue. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the petitioner's submissions regarding the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-18595-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 151 CWP-18595-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-08.07.2025 Davinder Kumar Garg ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (2), Muktsar Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Abhinav Narang, Ms. Parnika Singla and Mr. Abhishek Periwal, Advocates, for the petitioner Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Nisha, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020. 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 the respondent has also not disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.07.11 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18595-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020, 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 08.07.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.11 16:36 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 →