ISHA AGGARWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7584/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01042139202519 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 issue raised by the petitioner was covered by its previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior decisions. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and granting liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly if they chose to do so. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Isha Aggarwal, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, 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 March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which designates the NFAC with exclusive power to issue such notices? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction by the wrong authority, citing the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148. The petitioner relied on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. 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-7584-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 181 CWP-7584-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-19.03.2025 Isha Aggarwal

....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, Mr. Ubhai Bharti Gupta, Advocates 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”) 0nd all 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 disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.03.24 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7584-2025 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 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 19.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.24 14:52 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 →