PREM CHAND vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18851/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01104138202510 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 previous judgments by 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). 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 advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying that the impugned notices and order were quashed, with the revenue having the option to reinitiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner challenged notices issued under Section 148A(1) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with an order under Section 148A(3) and an approval, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2021-2022. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by learned counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148A(1) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the order under Section 148A(3), and the approval dated 21.05.2025 for AY 2021-2022 are invalid on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 granting exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and order, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-18851-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 164 CWP-18851-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-10.07.2025 Pre Chand ....Petitioner Vs. C.B.D.T,New Delhi & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mittal, Advocate 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 21.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’); notice dated 22.03.2025 issued under Section 148 A (1) of the Act, 1961; order dated 21.05.2025 issued under Section 148 A (3) of the Act, 1961; approval dated 21.05.2025 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 Union of India has also not disputed the same. Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18851-2025 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 21.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 22.03.2025 issued under Section 148 A (1) of the Act, 1961; order dated 21.05.2025 issued under Section 148 A (3) of the Act, 1961; approval dated 21.05.2025 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 10.07.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →