SHIVAHARDWELL INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

CWP/11536/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shivahardwell Industries (India) Private Limited, which challenged several notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Faridabad, under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that these notices were issued without proper jurisdiction, referencing a circular from the CBDT that designated exclusive authority to the NFACT for issuing notices under Section 148. The court considered precedents from similar cases, notably Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India, which supported the petitioner's stance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747587 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India, Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VARUN ISSAR
• Assessee Lawyers: B M MONGA; ROHIT KAURA
• Keywords: Circular; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Notice; Notification; Penalty
• Section: 147; 148; 156

Judgement Text

"CWP-11536-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Shivahardwell Industries (India) Assistant Commissioner of CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. for the Income Tax Department. DEEPAK SIBAL Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 2 issued under Section 148 of order dated 28.03.2025 demand dated 28.03.2025 issued und penalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025, for AY 2019 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the favour by the judgment passed by a Co cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union CWP No.15745 India and others 3. Learned counsel appearing for the afore assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.155 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11536 Date of Decision : Shivahardwell Industries (India) Private Limited through its Director Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle 1, Faridabad and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. B.M.Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Advocate, for the Income Tax Department. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 2 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 28.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the demand dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the enalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025, for AY 2019 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the instant writ petition is squarely by the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the nder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others CWP No.15745-2024 decided on 19.07.2024 and India and others-CWP No.21509-2023 decided on 29.07.2024. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the afore assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 11536-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.04.2025 Private Limited through its Director …Petitioner , Circle 1, Faridabad and others …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 26.03.2024 the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’); issued under Section 147 of the 1961 Act; notice of er Section 156 of the 1961 Act, and enalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025, for AY 2019-2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue squarely covered in the petitioner’s ordinate Bench of this Court in the of India and others passed in 2024 decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of 2023 decided on 29.07.2024. the respondents does not dispute the afore assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. VANDANA 2025.05.06 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11536-2025 (O&M) 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. 5. The petitioner ha under Section 148 of the Section 147 of the Section 156 of the 1961 Act and for AY 2019-20 on the ground issue the same, in view of the circular/notificati CBDT wherein it has been specifically enumerated that the NFACT has exclusive power to issue the noti 6. A Co case (supra) and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), same issue, as raised in the present writ petition, by granting liberty to the revenue to follow the accordingly, if so advised. 7. In view of the above, the present of Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra), Singh’s case (supra), 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. April 28, 2025 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : 2025 (O&M) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 26 under Section 148 of the 1961 Act, order dated Section 147 of the 1961 Act, notice of demand dated 28.03.2025 is Section 156 of the 1961 Act and penalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 20 on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction to issue the same, in view of the circular/notificati wherein it has been specifically enumerated that the NFACT has exclusive power to issue the notice under Section 148 of the A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case (supra) and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), has same issue, as raised in the present writ petition, by granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the accordingly, if so advised. In view of the above, the present writ petition is Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra), decided on 19.07.2024 and Singh’s case (supra), decided on 29.07.2024. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 5 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No reportable : Yes/No Page 2 of 2 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the s challenged the notice dated 26.03.2024 issued order dated 28.03.2025 issued under notice of demand dated 28.03.2025 issued under w cause notice dated 28.03.2025 that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction to issue the same, in view of the circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 of the wherein it has been specifically enumerated that the NFACT has ce under Section 148 of the 1961 Act. ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s has allowed the petitions on the same issue, as raised in the present writ petition, by granting liberty to the procedure as laid down under the 1961 Act and proceed writ petition is allowed in terms decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.05.06 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "