TAJINDER KAUR vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AMRITSAR AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8596/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01045523202528 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 (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those referred cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue, granting 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 petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and allowing the revenue to re-initiate the process if they chose to do so following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tajinder Kaur, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-2023. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondent, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar-1, was represented by the Senior Standing Counsel. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023 is invalid on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly stated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such notices. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court 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 appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-8596-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 153 CWP-8596-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-28.03.2025 Tajinder Kaur

....Petitioner Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ,Amritsar 1 & anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kunwar Rajan, Mr. Raj Kumar Arora and Mr. Janya Sirohi, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 28.03.2024 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. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.04.03 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8596-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023 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 15:21 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 →