VIKRAM WADHWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5319/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01030701202525 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. The Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by previous judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed, and the revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior decisions. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent, implying the quashing of the impugned notice but allowing the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if they followed the correct procedure. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vikram Wadhwa, has filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 14.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner's primary contention is that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward 2(1) Chd lacked the jurisdiction to issue this notice. This is based on a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests the exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and the Union of India. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent arguments presented by both parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 14.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority (ITO Ward 2(1) Chd)? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of Section 148 of the Act and CBDT Circular/Notification dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argues that the ITO had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing such notices. The petitioner relies on judgments from a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court 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 Contentions: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-5319-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 150 CWP-5319-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-25.02.2025 Vikram Wadhwa ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 2(1) Chd & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 14.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.02.28 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-5319-2025 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 14.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2020-2021 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 25.02.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.28 17:28 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 →