MAHAVIR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9944/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01055283202507 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 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the established precedent of the co-ordinate bench concerning the jurisdictional issue arising from the CBDT notification. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the cited judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential actions, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahavir Educational Society, challenged a notice dated 28.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential actions, for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, did not dispute this contention. The High Court considered the submissions and the case records.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020 is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, as per the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power with the NFAC. The petitioner relied on the judgments 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). Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned counsel, 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-9944-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 175

CWP-9944-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-07.04.2025 Mahavir Educational Society ....Petitioner Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Chd. & 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. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 28.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020. 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 28.08.2024 issued Gaurav Arora 2025.04.09 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-9944-2025 2 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019- 2020 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 2025.04.09 10:25 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 →