MAHALUXMI ENTERPRISES V. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

CWP/10245/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the challenge by Mahaluxmi Enterprises against several notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Malerkotla, concerning the assessment year 2017-2018. The petitioner contested the jurisdiction of the issuing authority, citing a CBDT circular that specified the NFAC as the sole body authorized to issue such notices. The court referenced similar cases, Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, where it had previously ruled in favor of the petitioners under similar circumstances. The court's decision effectively nullified the actions taken by the Income Tax Officer in this instance, allowing for potential re-assessment by the correct authority if deemed necessary.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747786 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RANVIJAYSINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ANURAG SHARMA; KAPISH CHAWLA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; CBDT Circular; Jurisdiction; NFAC exclusive power; Notice; Penalty notices
• Section: 148; 144; 274; 144B; 270(A); 156; 271 AAC(1); 148 A (d)

Judgement Text

"CWP-10245-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 189 CWP-10245-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-08.04.2025 Mahaluxmi Enterprises ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Malerkotla & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Anurag Sharma and Mr. Kapish Chawla, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent-department. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 28.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 28.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 20.03.2025 issued under Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 20.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty notices dated 20.03.2025 under Section 274 read with Section 271 AAC (1) and 270 A 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 28.02.2024 issued Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10245-2025 2 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 28.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 20.03.2025 issued under Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 20.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty notices dated 20.03.2025 under Section 274 read with Section 271 AAC (1) and 270 A 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 08.04.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "