JASBIR KAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6302/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01035446202506 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 previous judgments by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on July 19, 2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on July 29, 2024). In those cases, the 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. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench, which found merit in the argument concerning the jurisdictional limitations of the issuing authority in light of the relevant CBDT circular. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, must be issued by the competent authority as per the prevailing circulars and statutory provisions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jasbir Kaur, has filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Ludhiana. The petitioner's primary contention is that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, is without jurisdiction, considering the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax lacked the jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, relying on the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which designates the NFAC as the sole authority for issuing such notices. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the jurisdiction of the issuing authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-6302-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 135 CWP-6302-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-06.03.2025 Jasbir Kaur ....Petitioner Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income, Circle-I,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 27.03.2024 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 2025.03.11 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6302-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27.03.2024 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 06.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.11 14:47 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 →