SHELLY AGRAWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8388/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01047182202509 April 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh disposed of the writ petition 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 issues, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning implies that the notice was indeed issued without proper jurisdiction as per the cited circular and precedents. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the aforementioned judgments, effectively quashing the impugned notice but allowing the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if they choose to follow the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shelly Agrawal, has filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 06.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-2023. The petitioner argues that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the relevant precedents. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 06.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023, is without jurisdiction in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the notice was issued without jurisdiction, relying on the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which specifies that the NFAC has exclusive authority to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner cited the 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) as covering the issue. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-8388-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 133

CWP-8388-2025 Date of Decision:-09.04.2025 SHELLY AGRAWAL ....Petitioner Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 06.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) for AY 2022-2023. 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.04.11 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8388-2025 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 06.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2022-2023, on the ground that he 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 09.04.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.11 14:25 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 →