SAVITA GOYAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8052/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01045974202521 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

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 cited cases, a co-ordinate bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The principle established is that if a Section 148 notice is issued by an authority without the requisite jurisdiction, as per the prevailing circulars or notifications, it is liable to be quashed. The court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notice and consequential actions, with the option for the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Savita Goyal, challenged a notice dated March 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was directed against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Malerkotla, and other respondents. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice, citing a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 26, 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 allegedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, relying on the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which, according to the petitioner, grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing such notices. The petitioner cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as precedents. 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-8052-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 142

CWP-8052-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-21.03.2025 Savita Goyal ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Malerkotla & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal and Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘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 . 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 2025.03.25 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8052-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 26.03.2024 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 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 →