MUKESH KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6705/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01037212202511 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 the judgments passed 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 grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's argument that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The Court found the present case covered by these precedents. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited judgments.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 28.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 27.02.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144, a notice of demand dated 27.02.2025 under Section 156, and a penalty show cause notice dated 27.02.2025, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Faridkot, and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings for AY 2020-2021 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC for such notices. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-6705-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 145 CWP-6705-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-11.03.2025 Mukesh Kumar

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer,Ward 1, Faridkot & 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 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”); order dated 27.02.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961 and notice of demand dated 27.02.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 27.02.2025, 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 . Gaurav Arora 2025.03.18 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6705-2025 2 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 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 27.02.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961 and notice of demand dated 27.02.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 27.02.2025, 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 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 →