HARJEET KAUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7010/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038892202512 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, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which designated the NFAC with exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notice and permit the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to do so, following the correct procedure.

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 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority, the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2 Ludhiana, lacked jurisdiction. This was based on a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested the exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Sr. Standing counsel, did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 10.01.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, as the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power for such issuances. 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 Contention: The learned counsel 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-7010-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 163 CWP-7010-2025 (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 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 . 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-7010-2025 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 2020-2021 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 →