RICHI VIJ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7343/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01040877202518 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. The reasoning was that the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the issuing authority, based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, was identical to the issues decided in the cited precedents. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed, and liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Therefore, the notice issued by the respondent was quashed, with the liberty for the revenue to re-issue it following the correct procedure. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Richi Vij, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The notice was issued by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Circle 3 (1), Gurgaon. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by learned counsel, did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Circle 3 (1), Gurgaon, is without jurisdiction in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction as per the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC. The petitioner relied on the 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-7343-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 163 CWP-7343-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.03.2025 Richi Vij ....Petitioner Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Circle 3 (1), Gurgaon, Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Salil Kapoor and Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocates 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 instant writ petition is to notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) 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 2025.03.24 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7343-2025 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 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2020-2021 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 →