G AND D INTERNATIONAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5730/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01033105202501 March 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, 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 referred cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue raised by the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the established precedent that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which designated the NFAC with exclusive power for issuing Section 148 notices. The court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, G & D International, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 13.03.2024 under Section 148A(d), and a show cause notice dated 25.01.2024 under Section 148A(b) for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat, and another, were represented. The court was informed that the issue was covered by previous judgments of a co-ordinate bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the order dated 13.03.2024 under Section 148A(d), and the show cause notice dated 25.01.2024 under Section 148A(b) for AY 2020-2021 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notices and order as the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 specifically grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 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 contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-5730-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 117 CWP-5730-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-01.03.2025 G & D International ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat & anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nitin Kanwar and Ms. Nisha Rana, Advocates, 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 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; show cause notice dated 25.01.2024 issued under Section 148 A(b) of the 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-5730-2025 2 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 the notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; show cause notice dated 25.01.2024 issued under Section 148 A(b) 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 01.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.05 17:21 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 →