Nimratdeep Singh Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Nimratdeep Singh Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided on 29.07.2024); all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the challenged Section 148 notice, Section 147 order, Section 156 demand notice and penalty notices under Sections 271 AAC(1) and 270 A for AY 2020-2021 were issued without jurisdiction by 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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Court's answer

The issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the Co-ordinate Bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided on 29.07.2024), which allowed writ petitions on the same issue by granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute this.

Ratio / Principle

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.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CWP-10397-2025 (O&M), decided 09.04.2025 (coram: Arun Palli and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; judgment authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J.). Petitioner challenged, for AY 2020-2021, a notice dated 27.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 23.03.2025 under Section 147, a demand notice dated 23.03.2025 under Section 156, and penalty notices dated 23.03.2025 under Sections 271 AAC(1) and 270 A, along with all consequential actions. Ground of challenge: the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, since the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 specifically vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices. Counsel relied on the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), which allowed writ petitions on the same issue with liberty to the revenue to follow the statutory procedure, if so advised; the Union of India did not dispute the position. The Court disposed of the petition in terms of those two judgments, and all pending applications likewise stand disposed of.

CWP-10397-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

171

CWP-10397-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.04.2025

NIMRATDEEP SINGH

....Petitioner

Vs.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Circle 1 (1), Chd AND ORS

...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Gurminder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Goyal and Mr. Nitish Bansal, Advocates, for the petitioner.

Mrs.Urvashi Dhugga, Standing counsel for the respondent. ***

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty notice dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961; penalty notice dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 270 A 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 disputed

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

CWP-10397-2025

2

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 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; penalty notice dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961; penalty notice dated 23.03.2025 issued under Section 270 A 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

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