PRERNA SINDHWANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8303/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01042455202507 April 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 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench 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). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench. The operative direction is to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited judgments, granting liberty to the revenue to proceed as per law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Prerna Sindhwani, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 22, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated February 27, 2025, issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, and consequential actions for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat, and another.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment order dated 27.02.2025 are invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 147 of the Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice and assessment order in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-8303-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 131 CWP-8303-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-07.04.2025 Prerna Sindhwani ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat & anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nitin Kanwar and Ms. Nisha Rana, Advocates, for the petitioner Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel (Through VC) with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 27.02.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.04.09 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8303-2025 2 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 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 27.02.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential 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 07.04.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.09 10:25 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 →