SANJAY GARG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8526/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01047580202502 April 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 previously passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on July 19, 2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on July 29, 2024). These prior judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's argument that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the cited precedents. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sanjay Garg, challenged a notice dated March 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with an assessment order dated March 7, 2025, a demand notice, and a penalty show cause notice, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority 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, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Patiala, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's submissions regarding the applicability of prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order dated March 7, 2025, are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, citing the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly states that the NFAC has exclusive power. The petitioner 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 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,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-8526-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 138 CWP-8526-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-02.04.2025 Sanjay 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 2025.04.04 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8526-2025 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 02.04.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.04 12:19 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 →