Sumit Bansal Vs Income Tax Officer and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Sumit Bansal Vs Income Tax Officer and Others — 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); liberty left to the revenue to follow the procedure 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 Issuing Authority had jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 dated 26.03.2024 and the assessment order under Section 147 dated 27.03.2025 (with demand notice and penalty show cause notice) for AY 2022-2023, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting NFAC with exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. +1 more

Court's answer

In terms of those decisions, the revenue is at liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

Ratio / Principle

The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the Coordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided 29.07.2024), which the counsel for the Union of India did not dispute.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (coram: Arun Palli and Sudeepti Sharma JJ.; judgment authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J.) disposed of CWP-10509-2025 (O&M) filed by Sumit Bansal challenging (i) notice dated 26.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (ii) assessment order dated 27.03.2025 under Section 147, (iii) demand notice and penalty show cause notice dated 27.03.2025, and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023, on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, since the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 specifically vests NFAC with exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. Counsel for the petitioner contended the issue was covered by the Coordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (decided 29.07.2024); counsel for the Union of India did not dispute this. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of in terms of those decisions, with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

CWP-10509-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

188 CWP-10509-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.04.2025

SUMIT BANSAL

....Petitioner

Vs.

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

...Respondents

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

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

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

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); impugned assessment order dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961, demand notice and penalty show cause notice dated 27.03.2025 and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023.

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

CWP-10509-2025

2

whole records of the case.

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; impugned assessment order dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961, demand notice and penalty show cause notice dated 27.03.2025 and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023 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