NISHI SOOD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7030/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038848202512 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, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if 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 exclusive power vested with the NFAC under the relevant CBDT circular. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued under Section 148 by an authority other than the NFAC, contrary to the CBDT circular, are without jurisdiction. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notices and actions, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate the process correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nishi Sood, challenged a notice dated March 30, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a show cause notice dated March 5, 2025, along with consequential actions for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, did not dispute this contention. The High Court considered the records and arguments presented.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 30, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential actions are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and take consequential actions, relying on the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices. 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-7030-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 174

CWP-7030-2025 (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 30.03.2024 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 2019-2020. 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-7030-2025 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 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the 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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →