BHAWANA SACHDEVA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7009/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01039027202512 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 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 grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices as per the CBDT circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice but allowing the revenue to re-initiate the process if permissible under law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bhawana Sachdeva, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022. 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 respondents, including the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1) Ludhiana, were represented by the Senior Standing Counsel. The court considered previous judgments on similar issues.

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 without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power with the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction by the respondent No. 1, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive authority to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-7009-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 162 CWP-7009-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-12.03.2025 Bhawana Sachdeva ....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 23.03.2024 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-7009-2025 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 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 →