INDIRA MANCHANDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7268/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01039946202518 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 and Jasjit Singh's case. In those prior cases, similar writ petitions were allowed, 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 petitioner's contention, which was not disputed by the revenue, that the Income Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice due to the exclusive power vested in the NFAC as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, for the relevant period, must be issued by the designated authority (NFAC) as per the prevailing circulars, failing which they are liable to be quashed. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Indira Manchanda, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-2023. The petitioner argued that the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1) Ludhiana, lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice, as the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) holds exclusive power to issue such notices, as per a CBDT circular/notification dated March 29, 2022. The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, did not dispute this contention. The High Court had previously dealt with similar issues in connected matters.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 conferring exclusive power on the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of 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 Income Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice, as the NFAC has exclusive power to do so, citing a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner relied on 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-7268-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 142 CWP-7268-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.03.2025 Indira Manchanda ....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. 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 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) for AY 2022-2023. 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 2025.03.24 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7268-2025 2 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 AY 2022-2023 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 18.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.24 14:44 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 →