M/S RADIANT DIGITEK NETWORK LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2740/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01016845202409 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. These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, which concerned the jurisdiction of the issuing authority for Section 148 notices in view of CBDT circulars. The court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the co-ordinate benches in the aforementioned cases, which had addressed the jurisdictional challenge to Section 148 notices based on CBDT notifications. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of those judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and granting liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Radiant Digitek Network Ltd., challenged a notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021, and consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana, citing a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondent, Union of India, represented by the Sr. Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, is without jurisdiction in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power with the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's contention: The notice is invalid as it was issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction, contrary to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. 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 did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-2740-2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 277 CWP-2740-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.07.2025 M/s Radiant Digitek Network Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissione of Income Tax, Centgral Circle-2, Ludhiana

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Nitika Garg, Advocate 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 consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021. 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-2740-2024 2 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 consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021, 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 09.07.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:51 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 →