SAROJ RANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6370/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01036219202510 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

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. The reasoning followed the precedent set by these co-ordinate bench decisions, which had allowed writ petitions on identical issues. The principle established is that if a Section 148 notice is issued by an authority without the requisite jurisdiction as per the prevailing CBDT circulars, such a notice is invalid. The court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Saroj Rani, challenged a notice dated 06.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 06.03.2024 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, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which states that the NFAC has exclusive power. The petitioner relies 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 revenue's counsel did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-6370-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 136 CWP-6370-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-10.03.2025 Saroj Rani ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad and ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 06.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘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 disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.03.12 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6370-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 06.03.2024 issued under Section 148 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 10.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.12 19:07 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 →