RAKESH KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19058/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01105095202511 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 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention, which was not disputed by the revenue, that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(3) due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. This circular vests exclusive power with the NFAC. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued under Section 148 by authorities other than the NFAC, contrary to the CBDT circular, are invalid for want of jurisdiction. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited precedents, which typically involves quashing the impugned notices/orders and granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure if advised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, challenged a notice dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148A(3) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Yamuna Nagar, and others, did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148A(3) of the Act, for AY 2019-2020, 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 issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice and order as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 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 revenue's counsel 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

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 134 CWP-19058-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-11.07.2025 Rakesh Kumar ...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 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’); order dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 A (3) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020. 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

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 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 A (3) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020, 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 →