AJIT KAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6686/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01037151202511 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. In those cited cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the established precedent of co-ordinate benches of the High Court dealing with similar challenges to Section 148 notices issued without jurisdiction, particularly in light of the NFAC's exclusive powers as per CBDT notifications. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued by authorities lacking the prescribed jurisdiction, as defined by CBDT circulars, are liable to be quashed, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential actions, subject to the revenue's right to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ajit Kaur, challenged a notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices, as per a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022. The respondent, Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana, and others were the opposing parties. The matter was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022 is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, considering the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 which vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction as the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, citing CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022. 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 appearing 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-6686-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 143 CWP-6686-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-11.03.2025 Ajit Kaur

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer,ITO Ward 6 (1), Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates 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 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) and consequential actions for AY 2021-2022. 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 2025.03.18 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6686-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions for AY 2021-2022, 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 11.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.18 17:48 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 →