MUKESH TANWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18756/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01103147202509 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 implicitly accepted the assessee's contention that the notice was issued without proper jurisdiction, aligning with the precedent set by the co-ordinate benches. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the aforementioned judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice, subject to the revenue's right to re-initiate proceedings correctly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mukesh Tanwar, challenged a notice dated March 30, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022, and all consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Faridabad, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 30, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022, is without jurisdiction, considering the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, in view of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which specifically enumerates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such notices. The petitioner relied on 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). Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the issue raised by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-18756-2025 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 185

CWP-18756-2025 Date of decision: 09.07.2025 Mukesh Tanwar ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Faridabad & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961) and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022. 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 disputed the same. Gaurav Arora 2025.07.14 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18756-2025 [2] 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 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022 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 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.14 17:00 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 →