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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9952/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01055104202507 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 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, a coordinate bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, finding that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular. The court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the established precedent that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices, and any deviation from this would render the notice invalid. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the cited precedents, allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they chose to do so following the correct procedure.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahavir Educational Society, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 28.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The petitioner argued that the authority issuing the notice lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, did not dispute this contention. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh considered the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2018-2019 is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022 stipulating exclusive power of NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by an authority without jurisdiction, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices 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 Contentions: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-9952-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 177

CWP-9952-2025 (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 2018-2019. 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-9952-2025 2 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2018- 2019 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 →