HARJEET KAUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7001/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038870202512 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 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those prior cases, the Court had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction based on the CBDT circular. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the previous judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and allowing the revenue to re-issue it correctly if they chose to do so.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harjeet Kaur, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 10.01.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The notice was issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 Ludhiana. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The Revenue did not dispute this contention. The High Court had previously dealt with similar issues in other cases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 10.01.2024, 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, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law) The assessee contended that the notice is bad in law as the issuing authority, the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, lacked jurisdiction. This is based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which, according to the assessee, vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC. The assessee relied on the judgments of 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). The revenue, through its counsel, did not dispute the assessee's contention regarding the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-7001-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 156 CWP-7001-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-12.03.2025 Harjeet Kaur ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle 2 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 10.01.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) 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 2025.03.19 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7001-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 10.01.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2021-2022 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 →