SUNNY JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19045/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01105265202511 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cited cases, a Coordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 is issued by an authority without the requisite jurisdiction as per the prevailing circulars and notifications, such a notice is liable to be quashed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and consequential actions, with liberty to the revenue to issue a fresh notice if permissible under law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sunny Jain, challenged a notice dated June 27, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022, along with all consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Ludhiana, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention. The High Court considered previous judgments on similar issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated June 27, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices (question of law)? Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice because the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power in this regard. 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 contentions: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 128 CWP-19045-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-11.07.2025 Sunny Jain

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Ludhiana & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta and Ms. Mamta Gupta, 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 27.06.2025 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 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 27.06.2025 issued Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2 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 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 →