Anup Jain Vs Union of India and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Anup Jain Vs Union of India and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024); all pending applications, if any, also stood disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the consequential actions for AY 2021-2022 were without 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.

Court's answer

The issue raised in the writ petition is covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024), and learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute this.

Ratio / Principle

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

Income Tax - Notice under S.148, Income Tax Act, 1961 - Jurisdiction of issuing authority - Petition challenged notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 and consequential actions for AY 2021-2022, on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, since the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. Held, the issue was covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024), which allowed writ petitions on the same issue while granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly if so advised; counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the coverage. Petition disposed of in terms of the said two decisions; pending applications, if any, also disposed of. Bench: Arun Palli and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; opinion authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J. Decision dated 09.04.2025.

CWP-10426-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

175

CWP-10426-2025 Date of Decision:-09.04.2025

ANUP JAIN

....Petitioner

Vs.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Varun Bansal & Mr. Nitin Bhasin, 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 present petition is to notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022.

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. 21509-2023 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 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10426-2025

2

whole records of the case.

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential 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.

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