ALKA GOYAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8072/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01046089202521 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 was covered by the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench 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 procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of those earlier judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying that the Section 148 notice was likely quashed or set aside, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Alka Goyal, challenged a notice dated March 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021, and all consequential actions. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to 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 Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Malerkotla, and others, was the respondent. The matter was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

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 invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue such notices? (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 purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC. The petitioner cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as covering the present issue. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel appearing 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-8072-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 147

CWP-8072-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-21.03.2025 Alka 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

CWP-8072-2025 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

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →