SURASTI OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8489/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01048253202528 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. The Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner was identical to the issues decided in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, decided by a coordinate bench of the same High Court. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed, and the revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. Following these precedents, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the said judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the earlier judgments, implying that the notices and orders were quashed, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if permissible under law. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Surasti Overseas Pvt. Ltd., challenged notices and orders issued under Sections 148, 147, 156, 271 AAC(1), and 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was directed against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Gurgaon, and other respondents. The core of the petitioner's argument was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuance of notices and orders under Sections 148, 147, 156, 271 AAC(1), and 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax was without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner 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 exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on coordinate bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. 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,Section 147,Section 156,Section 271 AAC(1),Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-8489-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 133

CWP-8489-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-28.03.2025 Surasti Overseas Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Gurgaon (2) & 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. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1)of the Act, 1961; notice dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 270A of the 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.04.03 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8489-2025 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 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1)of the Act, 1961; notice dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 270A 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 →