DEEPAK RANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18699/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01103470202509 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 vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. These earlier judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar grounds, quashing the notices and orders issued by authorities lacking jurisdiction. 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 established principle that notices issued by an authority without proper jurisdiction are void. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notice and order, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if permissible under law. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Deepak Rana, challenged a notice dated 13.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 13.06.2025 under Section 148A(3) of the Act, and all consequential actions for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued 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 respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 13.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 13.06.2025 under Section 148A(3) of the Act, for AY 2019-2020, are liable to be quashed on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice and order, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as precedents. Revenue's contention: The respondents 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

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 174 CWP-18699-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.07.2025 Deepak Rana ...Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Yamuna Nagar & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura, Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Jr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Ms. Muskan Chauhan, Advocates for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 13.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’); order dated 13.06.2025 issued under Section 148 A (3) of the Act, 1961 and all 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 respondents has also not Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

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 13.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 13.06.2025 issued under Section 148 A (3) of the Act, 1961 and all 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 2025.07.18 15:51 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 →