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

Sanjay Kumar Bhansali 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's case (supra), decided 19.07.2024, and Jasjit Singh's case (supra), decided 29.07.2024; all pending applications, if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 12.03.2024 under Section 148, the order dated 31.03.2025 under Section 147 and the demand notice dated 31.03.2025 under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (AY 2022-2023) were issued without jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices.

Court's answer

The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (supra), decided on 19.07.2024, and Jasjit Singh's case (supra), decided on 29.07.2024, thereby adopting the disposition already reached on the identical Section 148 jurisdiction issue.

Ratio / Principle

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh — CWP-10563-2025 (O&M), Sanjay Kumar Bhansali v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (3), Faridabad & ors., decided 09.04.2025 (Coram: Arun Palli and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; judgment under Sudeepti Sharma, J.). The petition challenged the notice dated 12.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the order dated 31.03.2025 under Section 147, the demand notice dated 31.03.2025 under Section 156, and 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 enumerates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. Learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute that the matter is covered by Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 215092023 as printed and connected matters, decided 29.07.2024), in which such writ petitions were allowed with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. Accordingly, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of those two decisions, and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

CWP-10563-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

197

CWP-10563-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.04.2025

Sanjay Kumar Bhansali

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (3), Faridabad & ors.

...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal and Mr. Yash Gilhotra, Advocates, for the petitioner.

Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 12.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 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 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10563-2025

2

whole records of the case.

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 12.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 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 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document