M/S SHIKHAR REALTY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 CR BUILDING FARIDABAD HARYANA 122001

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7151/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01040428202517 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgments passed by a co-ordinate bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by the co-ordinate bench, which was not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction is to dispose of the writ petition in terms of these prior judgments, implying that the notice issued under Section 148 was found to be without jurisdiction in its original form, but the revenue has the liberty to re-initiate the process correctly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Shikhar Realty Services Ltd., challenged a notice dated 21.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, as per a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Faridabad. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 21.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 is without jurisdiction, given the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law). The assessee contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifies that the NFAC has exclusive power. The assessee relied on the judgments of a co-ordinate bench of the High Court 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). The revenue, represented by learned Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, did not dispute the assessee's contention regarding the applicability of the cited precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-7151-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 144

CWP-7151-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-17.03.2025 M/s Shikhar Realty Services Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle 1, Fardiabad ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate with Mr. Iqbal Roshan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi J. Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 21.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); and 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.03.20 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7151-2025 2 disputed the same. 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 21.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and 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 17.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.20 17:58 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 →