ROMILA SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8418/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01047712202528 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 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, a co-ordinate bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, which concerned the jurisdiction to issue Section 148 notices. The court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the co-ordinate bench, which found that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction as per the relevant circulars. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited judgments, allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to follow the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Romila Sharma, challenged a notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer and Union of India, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh considered the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 granting exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law) The assessee argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC. The assessee also cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as covering the present issue. The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contentions and did not present any arguments against the cited precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-8418-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 127 CWP-8418-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-28.03.2025 Romila Sharma ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (1), Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Umang Goyal, Advocate 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 24.03.2024 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 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 24.03.2024 Gaurav Arora 2025.04.03 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8418-2025 2 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 28.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.03 15:20 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 →