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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/4784/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095608202309 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,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 (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 procedure laid down 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 dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential actions, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if permissible under law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Jujhar Advertisers Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021, and any consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondent, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, as per CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power in the NFAC. (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by an authority without jurisdiction, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. They cited the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench 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 respondent did not dispute the petitioner's contentions and implicitly agreed that the matter was covered by the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-4784-2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 277-3 CWP-4784-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.07.2025 M/s Jujhar Advertisers 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, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Nitika Garg, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021. 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 for the respondent has also not disputed the same. GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.15 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-4784-2024 2 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 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021, 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 09.07.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.15 12:15 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 →