Garhwal Sabha Regd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Garhwal Sabha Regd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 215092023, decided 29.07.2024); pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Issuing Authority had jurisdiction to issue the notice dated 30.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequent assessment order, notice of demand and penalty show cause notice for AY 2020-2021, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148.

Court's answer

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had already allowed writ petitions raising the same issue (as raised in the present writ petition), granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

Ratio / Principle

The learned counsel appearing for Union of India did not dispute that the issue was covered by the said Co-ordinate Bench judgments.

Key takeaways

In view of the above, the present writ petition stands disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024).ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Income Tax – Assessment for AY 2020-2021 – Writ petition challenging notice dated 30.03.2024 under Section 148, assessment order dated 25.02.2025 under Sections 147/144B, notice of demand dated 25.02.2025 under Section 156 and penalty show cause notice dated 25.02.2025 under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the Issuing Authority lacked jurisdiction, the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 having vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. Held: the issue is covered by Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 215092023, decided 29.07.2024), which allowed such writ petitions on the same issue while granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act; counsel for Union of India did not dispute the coverage. Petition disposed of in terms of those judgments; pending applications disposed of.

CWP-10306-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

149

CWP-10306-2025 Date of Decision:-09.04.2025

GARHWAL SABHA REGD

....Petitioner

Vs.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (Exemptions), Circle-2, Chandigarh AND OTHERS

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing counsel for the respondent. ***

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) impugned assessment order dated 25.02.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 25.02.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 25.02.2025 issued under Section 270A of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021.

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. 215092023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024 .

Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not

Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10306-2025

2

disputed the same.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case.

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) impugned assessment order dated 25.02.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961; notice of demand dated 25.02.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty show cause notice dated 25.02.2025 issued under Section 270A of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021, 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.

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.

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 09.04.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document