NISHI SOOD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7026/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038818202512 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 (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). These prior judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, quashing the notices issued under Section 148. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such notices. 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 quash the impugned notices and consequential actions, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings as per law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nishi Sood, challenged a notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a show cause notice dated 05.03.2025, along with consequential actions, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana, and others, was the respondent. The matter came before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential actions are liable to be quashed on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act 1961 and CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC. The petitioner relied on judgments from 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). 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-7026-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 171

CWP-7026-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-12.03.2025 Nishi Sood ....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. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and show cause notice dated 05.03.2025 and all consequential actions, 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.03.18 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7026-2025 2 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 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and show cause notice dated 05.03.2025 and all consequential actions, 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 12.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.18 17:50 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →