Rajiv Kumar Mahna v. Income Tax Officer and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Apr 2025CWP/10390/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 148 Income Tax Act 1961 notice; AY 2021-2022; jurisdiction of Issuing Authority; NFAC exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices; CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022; writ disposed in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, 29.07.2024); Union of India non-dispute; Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1) Ludhiana; Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Sudeepti Sharma, J. (author); Arun Palli, J.; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (supra), decided 19.07.2024, and Jasjit Singh's case (supra), decided 29.07.2024; all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶¶26

Rajiv Kumar Mahna Vs Income Tax Officer and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2021-2022 was issued by an Issuing Authority lacking jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. +1 more

¶¶24

Court's answer

The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided 29.07.2024), which had allowed identical writ petitions on the same jurisdictional issue while granting the revenue liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised.

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel appearing for Union of India did not dispute that the issue in the present petition is covered by the said Co-ordinate Bench judgments.

¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Chandigarh), CWP-10390-2025 (O&M), decided 09.04.2025 (Arun Palli & Sudeepti Sharma JJ.; opinion by Sudeepti Sharma, J.) — Rajiv Kumar Mahna v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Ludhiana and others. Petition challenged notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148, Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022, on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. Held: the issue is covered by Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh v. Union of India (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024), which counsel for Union of India did not dispute; the writ petition was disposed of in terms of those judgments, under which the revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. All pending applications, if any, also stood disposed of.

¶1

CWP-10390-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

164

¶5

CWP-10390-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.04.2025

RAJIV KUMAR MAHNA

....Petitioner

Vs.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (1), LUDHIANA AND OTHERS

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate Ms. Uma Bharti, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶13

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent.

¶14

¶15

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶16

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022.

¶17

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 .

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same.

¶19

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶20

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

¶21

CWP-10390-2025

¶22

¶23

whole records of the case.

¶24

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶28

(ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 09.04.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶29

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

Rajiv Kumar Mahna v. Income Tax Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Kumar Mahna v. Income Tax Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Abhishek Anirudh Joshi Alias Abhishek Joshi Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Harbans Lal Vs Income Tax Officer and Others

Sanjeev Garg Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shelly Agrawal Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad and Others

Sarabjit Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others