DEENDYAL INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5313/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01029862202525 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue in the present writ petition was covered by the judgments of a co-ordinate bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying that the notice was quashed with liberty to the revenue to re-issue it following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Deendyal Infracon Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions for Assessment Year 2020-2021. 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 respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Rohtak, and another. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power in the NFAC. The petitioner relied on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contention: The 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-5313-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 147 CWP-5313-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-25.02.2025 Deendyal Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Rohtak & anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nitin Kanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel (Through VC) with Mr. V. Vedia Rao, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”)and conseuqential 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 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 2025.03.04 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-5313-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential 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. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 25.02.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.04 10:55 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 →