JMD BUILTHOME vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9665/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01053601202504 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 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cited cases, a Coordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, 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 contention that the issuing officer lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT's notification assigning exclusive power to the NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 must be issued by the designated authority as per CBDT directives, failing which they are liable to be quashed. The operative direction was to quash the notice, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings as per law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, JMD Builthome, challenged a notice dated March 28, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The notice was issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Faridabad. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular/notification dated March 29, 2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The respondent-department did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Faridabad, had the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power with the NFAC. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid as the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, relying on the CBDT circular of March 29, 2022, which designates the NFAC as the sole authority for issuing Section 148 notices. The petitioner cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as precedents. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-9665-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125 CWP-9665-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-04.04.2025 JMD Builthome ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel for Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent-department. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) for AY 2021-2022. 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 2025.04.07 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-9665-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2021-2022 issued by respondent No. 1, on the ground that he 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 04.04.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.07 11:16 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 →