S AGGARWAL AND CO vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/27905/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01151554202519 September 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal noted that a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case had allowed writ petitions on the same issue raised by the petitioner. These judgments granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The Tribunal, by following the precedent set by its Co-ordinate Bench, allowed the present writ petition. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure and proceed as advised, implying that the original notice and order were vitiated due to jurisdictional error as per the cited circular and precedents. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned, and no issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner is challenging a notice dated 11.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 17.03.2024 passed under Section 147, and consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The challenge is based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which is pending. The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuing authority had the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-2020, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) for such notices? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the notice and subsequent order are invalid because the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which designates the NFAC as the sole authority for issuing Section 148 notices. The petitioner relies on judgments from a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509 of 2023, decided on 29.07.2024). Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Challenge in the present petition is to Notice dated 11.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act 1961"), order dated 17.03.2024 passed under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential proceedings for the Assessment year 2019-2020, on the ground that Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction to issue the same, in view of circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 of the CBDT, wherein, it has been specifically enumerated that National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by judgment passed by a JYOTI THAKUR 2025.09.23 08:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

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 of 2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner has preferred an appeal and same is pending before Appellate Authority. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents has also not disputed the same. 4.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file with their able assistance. 5.

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. Relevant portion of decision dated 19.07.2024 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (supra) reads as under:- JYOTI THAKUR 2025.09.23 08:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jyoti Thakur

JYOTI THAKUR 2025.09.23 08:43 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 →