KAMAL CHAWLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7059/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01040264202512 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 passed 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 issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench. The operative direction was to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, implying that the impugned notices were set aside, with liberty to the revenue to issue fresh notices if permissible under the law. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kamal Chawla, 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 2017-2018. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Faridabad, and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 30, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-2018, is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, turning on Section 148 of the Act and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, due to the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which specifically enumerates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such notices. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-7059-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 182

CWP-7059-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-12.03.2025 Kamal Chawla ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. 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 2017-2018. 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 2025.03.19 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7059-2025 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 2017-2018 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 2025.03.19 11:34 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 →