Himanshu Gupta Vs Income Tax Officer and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Himanshu Gupta 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 the coordinate-bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024); all pending applications, if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Issuing Authority had jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice dated 20.03.2024, the Section 147 order and Section 156 demand notice dated 29.03.2025, and the Section 271 AAC (1) notice dated 31.03.2025, and all consequential actions for AY 2020-2021, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power in the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices.

Court's answer

The present writ petition, raising the identical jurisdictional challenge to the Section 148/147/156/271 AAC (1) action for AY 2020-2021 (CBDT circular/notification of 29.03.2022 confining Section 148 notice power to the NFAC), is disposed of in terms of the coordinate-bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), which the revenue did not dispute.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (CWP-10616-2025 (O&M), decided 09.04.2025; opinion authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J. for the bench comprising Arun Palli and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.) disposed of a writ petition by Himanshu Gupta challenging, for AY 2020-2021: a notice dated 20.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; an order dated 29.03.2025 under Section 147; a demand notice dated 29.03.2025 under Section 156; a notice dated 31.03.2025 under Section 271 AAC (1); and all consequential actions. The sole ground was that the Issuing Authority lacked jurisdiction because a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 specifically vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. Counsel for Union of India did not dispute that the issue stood covered. Following the coordinate-bench rulings in Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh v. Union of India (CWP No. 215092023, decided 29.07.2024) — in which identical petitions were allowed, granting the revenue liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised — the Court disposed of the petition in terms of those judgments; pending applications also stood disposed of.

CWP-10616-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

210

CWP-10616-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.04.2025

Himanshu Gupta

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (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 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) 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 the same.

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

CWP-10616-2025

2

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case.

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) 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