RENU JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19044/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01105097202511 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a co-ordinate bench of the same court had previously allowed writ petitions on identical issues in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. In those cases, liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, if so advised. Given that the petitioner's appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The court did not decide the merits of the jurisdictional challenge itself but directed the pending appeal to be decided in light of prior pronouncements on the issue.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Renu Jain, challenged a notice dated 30.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 05.03.2025 under Section 147/144-B, and a demand notice dated 05.03.2025 under Section 151A, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-2019. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner also stated 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 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 05.03.2025 under Section 147/144-B, and the demand notice dated 05.03.2025 under Section 151A for AY 2018-2019 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner also submitted that an appeal on this issue is pending before the Appellate Authority. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144-B,Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-19044-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 127 CWP-19044-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-11.07.2025 Renu Jain ...Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 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 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’); assessment order dated 05.03.2025 issued under Section 147/144-B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 05.03.2025 issued under Section 151A of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-19044-2025 (O&M) 2 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 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 05.03.2025 issued under Section 147/144-B of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 05.03.2025 issued under Section 151A of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019, 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-19044-2025 (O&M) 3 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 →