SANTOSH MEHTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/4356/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01025291202517 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 its previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those prior cases, the Court had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The operative direction granted in those cases, and thus in the present case, was liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. The finding on the issue of jurisdiction was that the notice was indeed invalid due to the issuing authority's lack of jurisdiction as per the circular.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Santosh Mehta, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 22.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority, Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad, lacked jurisdiction. This was based on a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondent-department did not dispute this contention. The High Court had previously dealt with similar issues in other cases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 22.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2018-2019, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad, had no jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, as the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 exclusively empowered the NFAC 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 respondent-department did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-4356-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 151 CWP-4356-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-17.02.2025 Santosh Mehta ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad and ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent-department. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2018-2019. 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 2025.02.24 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-4356-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, for AY 2018-2019 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 17.02.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.24 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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →