M/S OMAXE HOUSING AND DEVELOPERS LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/20127/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110097202518 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 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 Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act if so advised. Given that the petitioner in the present case has an appeal pending before the Appellate Authority, the High Court disposed of the writ petition. The court directed the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in accordance with the aforementioned judgments of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. The operative direction was to decide the pending appeal based on the precedent set by the co-ordinate bench.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Omaxe Housing and Developers Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging a notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential actions for Assessment Year 2016-2017. The petitioner argued 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 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 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-2017 is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power in the NFAC? Assessee's Contentions: - The notice under Section 148 is bad in law as the issuing authority had no jurisdiction, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such notices. - The issue is covered by the judgments of this Court 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). - An appeal has been preferred and is pending before the Appellate Authority. 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

CWP-20127-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 133 CWP-20127-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.07.2025 M/s Omaxe Housing and Developers Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I &ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Puneet Aggarwal, Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Ms. Shruti Garg, Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2016-2017. 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 . 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.07.28 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-20127-2025 2 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 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2016-2017, 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. 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (LISA GILL) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 18.07.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.28 10:36 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 →