RANJANA RANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3343/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01019271202506 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments previously passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cited cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148. The revenue did not dispute this contention. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned order and notice, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to do so following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ranjana Rani, challenged an order dated 06.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, along with consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and Union of India, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 06.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020 are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC? Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned order and notice, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner cited 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) as covering the present issue. Revenue's contentions: The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-3343-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 CWP-3343-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-06.02.2025 Ranjana Rani

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Karnal & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Mukul Panpher, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to order dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings 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 disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.02.13 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-3343-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961 and notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings 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. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 06.02.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.13 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →