M/S VENUS COUNTY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5116/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01024919202524 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioner challenged the notice dated 31.03.2022 under Section 148 and the consequential order dated 30.03.2023 under Section 144 read with Section 147 for AY 2015-2016, on the ground that the Section 148 notice was issued without jurisdiction by the 'JAO' instead of the 'NFAC', citing CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022. The Court observed that a coordinate bench had previously allowed writ petitions on identical issues in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure. Since the petitioner's appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. No specific finding was given on the merits of the jurisdictional challenge, but the direction implies adherence to the precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Venus County Developers Pvt. Ltd., challenged a notice dated 31.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential order dated 30.03.2023 under Section 144 read with Section 147 for Assessment Year 2015-2016. The challenge was based on the assertion that the Section 148 notice was issued without jurisdiction by the 'JAO' instead of the 'NFAC'. The petitioner also stated that an appeal against the order was pending before the Appellate Authority. The respondent-department did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is without jurisdiction and invalid, as it was issued by the 'JAO' instead of the 'NFAC', contrary to CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices in the NFAC? Assessee's contention: The notice under Section 148 was issued without jurisdiction by the 'JAO' instead of the 'NFAC', rendering it invalid. This issue is covered by previous judgments of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-5116-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 151 CWP-5116-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-24.02.2025 M/s Venus County Developers Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (ACI5T), Central Circle 1, Ludiana

...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, 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 present petition is to notice dated 31.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, as order dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act, 1961, for A.Y 2015-2016, since the notice dated 31.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction and issued by ‘JAO’ instead of ‘NFAC’. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the above 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.02.28 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-5116-2025 2 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority. 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 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged notice dated 31.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, as order dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act, 1961, for A.Y 2015-2016, since the notice dated 31.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction and issued by ‘JAO’ instead of ‘NFAC’, 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. Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the Gaurav Arora 2025.02.28 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-5116-2025 3 judgments mentioned above. 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 24.02.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.28 10:40 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 →