TANIKA GARG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8524/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01047566202528 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's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cited cases, a Coordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The principle established is that if a notice under Section 148 is issued by an authority lacking the requisite jurisdiction as per CBDT guidelines or statutory provisions, such a notice and subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. The 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 quash the impugned notices and orders and grant liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to do so, following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tanika Garg, challenged a notice dated March 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated March 7, 2025, issued under Section 147, a demand notice, and a penalty show cause notice, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the authority issuing these notices 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 Section 148 notices. The respondent-department, through its counsel, did not dispute this contention. The High Court considered prior judgments on similar issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated March 7, 2025, issued under Section 147, and consequential notices, for AY 2020-2021, are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction in the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notices and orders because the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, vests the exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC. The assessee relied on 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). Revenue's contention: The revenue's counsel did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-8524-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 136 CWP-8524-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-28.03.2025 Tanika Garg ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Patiala & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel (Through VC) with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-department. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); impugned assessment order dated 07.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961, demand notice and penalty show cause notice dated 07.03.2025 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.04.03 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8524-2025 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 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; impugned assessment order dated 07.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961, demand notice and penalty show cause notice dated 07.03.2025 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 →