ROSY ARORA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6971/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01039429202512 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. These prior judgments had allowed writ petitions on identical issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention, which was not disputed by the revenue, that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular of 29.03.2022. The ratio decidendi is that a notice under Section 148 issued by an authority other than the NFAC, contrary to the CBDT circular, is without jurisdiction. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying the notice was quashed but allowing the revenue to re-initiate the process correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rosy Arora, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-2023. The notice was issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, did not dispute this contention. The High Court considered previous judgments on similar issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana, had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which mandates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court 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-6971-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 143 CWP-6971-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-12.03.2025 Rosy Arora ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (1) 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 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) for AY 2022-2023. 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 2025.03.19 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6971-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2022-2023 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 12.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.19 17:30 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 →