MANPREET KAUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8015/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01045552202521 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 in the present writ petition is covered by the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The operative direction is that the petition is disposed of in terms of the cited precedents, allowing the revenue to proceed as per law. No specific issue was left undecided; the court followed established precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manpreet Kaur, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 10.01.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 24.02.2025 under Section 147, and a demand notice dated 24.02.2025 under Section 156, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner's primary contention was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents are the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Ludhiana, and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 10.01.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 24.02.2025 under Section 147, and the demand notice dated 24.02.2025 under Section 156, for AY 2020-2021, are invalid on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, considering the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 148, Section 147, Section 156, and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner relies 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 has not disputed the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-8015-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 136 CWP-8015-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-21.03.2025 Manpreet Kaur ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income, Central Circle 2, 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. 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 10.01.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order daed 24.02.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 24.02.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and 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 . Gaurav Arora 2025.03.25 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8015-2025 2 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 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 10.01.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order daed 24.02.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 24.02.2025 issued under Section 156 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 21.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.25 13:03 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 →