RUCHI SETH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9688/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01054183202505 April 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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 Co-ordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned notice and consequential actions, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to do so following the correct procedure. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ruchi Seth, challenged a notice dated March 30, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022, and consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular 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. The High Court considered the records and the arguments presented by both parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 30, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022, is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, as per the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction by the Income Tax Officer, citing the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which designates the NFAC as the sole authority for issuing Section 148 notices. The petitioner relied on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the respondent-department 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-9688-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 CWP-9688-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-05.04.2025 Ruchi Seth ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (1), Chandigarh & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Umang Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing counsel for the respondent-department. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and consequential actions, 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 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.03.2025 Gaurav Arora 2025.04.07 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-9688-2025 2 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022, 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 05.04.2025

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 →