CHHITARWAL DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 3 GURGAON AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6651/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01036483202510 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) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning is that the issuing authority lacked the necessary jurisdiction as per the relevant circulars. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and proceedings, with a possibility for the revenue to re-initiate if they follow the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Chhittarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2014-2015. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Gurgaon, 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 respondents, including the Income Tax Officer and Union of India, were represented. The High Court considered the arguments and the case records.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2014-2015 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The Income Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice due to the exclusive power granted to the NFAC by the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-6651-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 189 CWP-6651-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-10.03.2025 Chhittarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Gurgaon & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms.Divya Arora and Mr. Amit Kaushik, Advocates for the petitioner Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent-department. *** 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”) and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2014-2015. 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 2025.03.12 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6651-2025 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 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2014-2015 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 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 →