THE GANOULI PRIMARY AGRICULUTRE COOPRATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18740/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01103244202509 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by previous judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Since the present case also involved a pending appeal before the Appellate Authority, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority was instructed to decide the petitioner's appeal in accordance with the aforementioned judgments. The Court did not decide the merits of the jurisdictional challenge but directed the appellate forum to consider it in light of the precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Ganouli Primary Agriculture Co-op Society Ltd., challenged a notice dated 25.03.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 09.03.2024 under Section 147 read with Section 144, and a demand notice dated 09.03.2024 under Section 156, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-2020. The challenge was based on the assertion 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 in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner also noted that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 25.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 09.03.2024 under Section 147 read with Section 144, and the demand notice dated 09.03.2024 under Section 156, for AY 2019-2020, are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifies that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relies on 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 revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-18740-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 181 CWP-18740-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.07.2025 The Ganouli Primary Agriculture Co-op Society Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Panchkula & 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 Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 25.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’); assessment order dated 09.03.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 09.03.2024 issued under Section 156 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority. 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 2025.07.28 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18740-2025 (O&M) 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 25.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 09.03.2024 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 09.03.2024 issued under Section 156 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. Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above. 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 2025.07.28 14:47 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 →