VEENA RANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5322/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01031107202525 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 present writ petition was covered by the 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 on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these earlier judgments. The court did not decide on the merits of the jurisdictional issue itself but followed the precedent. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Veena Rani, challenged a notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2017-2018. The challenge was also extended to consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Union of India, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, for AY 2017-2018, are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction in the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning Section 148 and Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice and order under challenge, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power with the NFAC. 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 contentions: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions and implicitly conceded to the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-5322-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 153 CWP-5322-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-25.02.2025 Veena Rani ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, YamunaNagar & 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 (Through VC) 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 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) and order dated 30.03.22024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, 1961 and consquential actions, for AY 2017-2018. 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-5322-2025 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 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and order dated 30.03.22024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, 1961 and consquential actions, for AY 2017-2018, 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 2025.02.28 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 →