VINOD MITTAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9862/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01054789202507 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, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's argument that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice but allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly if advised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vinod Mittal, challenged a notice dated 22.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-2018, and all consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 22.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-2018 is without jurisdiction, considering the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, relying on the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC for issuing such notices. The petitioner cited judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as covering the present issue. Revenue's contention: The revenue 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-9862-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 152

CWP-9862-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-07.04.2025 Vinod Mittal

....Petitioner Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cirlce-I, Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal and Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 22.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential 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 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 22.03.2025 issued Gaurav Arora 2025.04.08 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-9862-2025 2 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential 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 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 →