PALAK ARORA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19006/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01105149202511 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 passed in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cited cases, the Court had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, granting liberty 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 that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which reserved the power to issue Section 148 notices exclusively for the NFAC. The Court found this contention to be valid, as supported by its own previous decisions. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent, implying that the impugned notice and order were set aside, with the revenue having the option to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Palak Arora, challenged a notice dated 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148A(3) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Ludhiana, and others, did not dispute this contention. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148A(3) of the Act, 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? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice and order, as per 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 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 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-19006-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 112 CWP-19006-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-11.07.2025 Palak Arora ...Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (1), Ludhiana & 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. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Nikita Garg, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’); order dated 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148 A (3) of the 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-19006-2025 (O&M) 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also not 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 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148 A (3) 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 11.07.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:53 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 →