Bharti Sehgal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Bharti Sehgal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), in which writ petitions on the same issue were allowed with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019, is vitiated for want of jurisdiction of the Issuing Authority, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power in the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148.

Court's answer

The issue raised in the writ petition (want of jurisdiction of the Issuing Authority vis-à-vis the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 conferring exclusive power on the NFAC) is covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), and learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the same; accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of those decisions.

Ratio / Principle

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Income Tax — Writ petition against notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequential actions for AY 2018-2019 — Challenge on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 having vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC — Issue held covered by Co-ordinate Bench decisions of the same Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (decided 29.07.2024), which allowed writ petitions on the identical issue; counsel for the Union of India did not dispute coverage — Writ petition disposed of in terms of those decisions, with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; pending applications disposed of (Sudeepti Sharma, J.; Coram: Arun Palli & Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.).

CWP-10394-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

168

CWP-10394-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.04.2025

BHARTI SEHGAL

....Petitioner

Vs.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL KARNAL 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.

Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) and consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019.

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 disputed the same.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10394-2025

2

whole records of the case.

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, for AY 20182019 , 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

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 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document