SUNITA MITTAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9868/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01054634202507 April 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

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. These prior judgments, dealing with identical issues, had allowed writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 148. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction based on the CBDT circular. The High Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the aforementioned precedents. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sunita Mittal, challenged a notice dated March 22, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-2018, along with all consequential actions. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Faridabad, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 22, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-2018, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's Contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which designates the NFAC with exclusive power for such issuances. The petitioner relies on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the issue raised by the petitioner and implicitly conceded to the applicability of the cited precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-9868-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 155

CWP-9868-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-07.04.2025 Sunita Mitttal

....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-9868-2025 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 →