RENU KUKREJA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9815/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01055096202507 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 previous judgments 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). These prior judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, which concerned the jurisdiction to issue Section 148 notices. The High 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 dispose of the writ petition in line with the precedent, implying the quashing of the impugned notice but allowing the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Renu Kukreja, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner contended that the issuing authority, Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Faridabad, lacked jurisdiction. This was based on a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue's counsel did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 13.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, is without jurisdiction, considering the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The notice is invalid because the issuing officer, the Income Tax Officer, lacked jurisdiction, as the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 mandates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. Revenue's contention: The revenue's counsel did not dispute the petitioner's contention and implicitly accepted the applicability of prior judgments on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-9815-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 140 CWP-9815-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-07.04.2025 Renu Kukreja ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), 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 the respondent-department. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) for AY 2020-2021. 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 2025.04.08 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-9815-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2020-2021 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 07.04.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.08 18:47 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 →