SHRUTIDAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PANIPAT AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3694/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01021237202513 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgments 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 cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular of 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and proceedings, subject to the revenue's right to re-initiate the process correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shruti Dawar, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 10.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the issuing authority, Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat, lacked jurisdiction. This was based on 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 respondent-department did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 10.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020 is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat, had no jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice. This was because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such 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 regarding the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-3694-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 123 CWP-3694-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-13.02.2025 Shruti Dawar ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms.Divya Arora and Mr. Amit Kaushik, Advocates for the petitioner Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent-department. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 10.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential 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 2025.02.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-3694-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 10.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2019-2020 issued by respondent No. 1, on the ground that he 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 13.02.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.18 15:43 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 →