M/S JUJHAR CONSTRUCTION AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28335/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095604202302 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the judgments of a co-ordinate bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of these previous judgments. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying the notice is quashed but allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they follow the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Jujhar Construction and Travels Pvt. Ltd., has challenged a notice dated March 29, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argues that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondent is the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is hearing the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 29, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020 is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, considering the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which designates the NFAC with exclusive power to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argues that the notice is invalid as the issuing authority had no jurisdiction, citing the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices. They rely on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-28335-2023 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 280

CWP-28335-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision:-21.04.2025 M/s Jujhar Construction and Travels Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate with Mr. Iqbal Roshan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and 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 . 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not Gaurav Arora 2025.04.23 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-28335-2023 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 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and 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 21.04.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.23 12:04 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 →