SAKSHI SETH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5863/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01033614202503 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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 and Jasjit Singh's case. These prior judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar grounds concerning the jurisdiction to issue Section 148 notices. The High Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the precedents, implying that the impugned notice was likely quashed or set aside due to the jurisdictional issue raised, with the revenue having the option to re-initiate proceedings correctly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sakshi Seth, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority, Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1) Ludhiana, lacked jurisdiction. This was based on a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by an authority without jurisdiction, citing a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022. This circular, according to the petitioner, vests the exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices 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 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-5863-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 158 CWP-5863-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-03.03.2025 Sakshi Seth ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7 (1) Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 31.03.2024 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. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.03.05 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-5863-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.03.2024 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 03.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.05 17:25 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 →