THE JUI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8313/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01044594202527 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds concerning the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148. The principle established is that if the issuing authority lacks the requisite jurisdiction as per the relevant circulars or notifications, the proceedings initiated by them are invalid. The High 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 dispose of the writ petition in line with the precedents, effectively quashing the impugned notices and orders due to jurisdictional defect but allowing the revenue to restart the process correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Jui Primary Agricultural Co-op Society Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging various notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Bhiwani, and another respondent for Assessment Year 2020-2021. These included a notice dated 23.03.2024 under Section 148, a corrigendum to the notice dated 12.04.2024 under Section 148, an order dated 23.03.2024 under Section 148A(d), a show cause notice dated 19.12.2023 under Section 148A(b), and an assessment order dated 18.02.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's primary contention was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue did not dispute this.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Officer had the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 specifically enumerates that the NFAC has the exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee relied on judgments from a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court 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 did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(d),Section 148A(b),Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-8313-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 132 CWP-8313-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-27.03.2025 The Jui Primary Agricultural Co-op Society Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Bhiwani & 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 Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); corrigendum to notice dated 12.04.20241 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, order dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; show cause notice dated 19.12.2023 issued under Section 148 A(b) of the Act, 1961 and assessment order dated 18.02.2025 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 disputed the same.

CWP-8313-2025 2 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 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; corrigendum to notice dated 12.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, order dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; show cause notice dated 19.12.2023 issued under Section 148 A(b) of the Act, 1961 and assessment order dated 18.02.2025 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 27.03.2025

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 →