LOTUS ADVANCE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8728/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01047403202527 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 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench 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). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction based on the CBDT circular. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 issued by authorities other than the NFAC, contrary to the CBDT's circular, are liable to be quashed. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, implying the quashing of the notice and consequential actions, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Lotus Advance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued 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, Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon, and others, were represented by senior and junior standing counsel. The High Court considered the submissions of both parties and the relevant case law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's contention: The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice. This was based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which, according to the petitioner, specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-8728-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 143 CWP-8728-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-27.03.2025 Lotus Advance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1 (4), Gurgaon & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”)and consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020. 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.

CWP-8728-2025 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 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020, 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 27.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →