AVON ISPAT POWER LIMITED vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 4 LUDHIANA AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18628/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01103160202509 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 (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, finding that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction based on the CBDT circular. 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 ratio decidendi is that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by authorities other than the NFAC, in contravention of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, are without jurisdiction. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedents, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Avon Ispat & Power Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 30.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated 30.06.2025 issued under Section 148A(3) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range 4, Ludhiana & anr., did not dispute this contention. The High Court perused the records and heard the counsel for both parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 30.06.2025 issued under Section 148A(3) of the Act, for AY 2019-2020, are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice and order, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 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 respondent did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-18628-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 157 CWP-18628-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.07.2025 Avon Ispat & Power Ltd.

....Petitioner Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range 4, Ludhiana & anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. J.S. Bhasin & Mr. Rajiv Sharma 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 instant writ petition is to notice dated 30.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 30.06.2025 issued under Section 148 A (3) of the 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.07.14 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18628-2025 2 disputed the same. 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 30.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 30.06.2025 issued under Section 148 A (3) 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 09.07.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.14 16:59 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 →