SAMEER WADHWA vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9031/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01050833202528 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the writ petition in terms of its previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning is based on the established precedent that the NFAC has exclusive jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148, as per the CBDT circular. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued by authorities without the prescribed exclusive jurisdiction are liable to be quashed. The operative direction is the disposal of the writ petition in line with the cited precedents, allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they choose to follow the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sameer Wadhwa, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-2018, and consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondent, Union of India (represented by CBDT and others), did not dispute this contention. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana considered the submissions and the records.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-2018, is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, contrary to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such notices. The petitioner relies 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 contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-9031-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 193 CWP-9031-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-28.03.2025 Sameer Wadhwa ....Petitioner Vs. CBDT, North Block-New Delhi and ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Divya Suri, Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj & Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mittal, Advocates, for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel (Through VC) with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential actions, for AY 2017-2018. 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 2025.04.04 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-9031-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential actions, for AY 2017-2018, 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 2025.04.04 12:06 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 →