NEETIKA GABA vs. UNION OF INDIA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3370/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01019359202506 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,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. In those cited cases, a co-ordinate bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notices, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Neetika Gaba, filed a writ petition challenging several notices issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-2018. These notices included those under Section 148, Section 143(2) read with Section 147, and Section 142(1). The core of the challenge was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The Revenue did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148, Section 143(2) read with Section 147, and Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-2018 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices. 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 learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 147,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-3370-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 123 CWP-3370-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-06.02.2025 Neetika Gaba

....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. M.R. Sharma, 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 notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); notice dated 18.07.2024 issued under Section 143 (2) read with Section 147 of the Act, 1961 and notice dated 01.08.2024 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 10.01.2025 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings for AY 2017-2018. 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 2025.02.13 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-3370-2025 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 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 18.07.2024 issued under Section 143 (2) read with Section 147 of the Act, 1961 and notice dated 01.08.2024 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 10.01.2025 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings for AY 2017-2018, 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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →