NISHA AGGARWAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/27951/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01151331202519 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. In those cases, the petitions were allowed, and liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The Tribunal, in the present case, followed the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition, quashing the impugned notice and order, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. No specific amount in dispute was recorded, and the issue of jurisdiction based on the CBDT circular was the primary focus.

What were the facts?

The petitioner is challenging a Notice dated 21.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 17.03.2024 passed under Section 147 of the Act, and all consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge is based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, citing 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 also filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which is pending. The respondents have not disputed the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent order under Section 147 of the Act, 1961, are without jurisdiction, considering the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent order under Section 147 due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which, according to the petitioner, exclusively empowers the NFAC to issue such 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 respondents have not disputed 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 21.03.2023 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 2020-2021, 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 →