Disposed¶25

Mange Ram v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Apr 2025CWP/10656/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 148 Income Tax Act 1961 notice; reassessment/open notice AY 2020-2021; NFAC exclusive jurisdiction; CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022; jurisdiction of Issuing Authority; writ disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 215092023, 29.07.2024); Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; liberty to revenue to follow procedure under Act 1961; consequential actions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (29.07.2024); per those decisions, liberty rests with the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. Pending applications disposed of. ¶25

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2020-2021, and all consequential actions, were validly issued, given the petitioner's contention that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024).

¶25

Ratio / Principle

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed writ petitions raising the same issue in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; the present petition raises the same issue, which the Union of India did not dispute.

¶24

Key takeaways

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Coram: Arun Palli and Sudeepti Sharma JJ.; judgment authored by Sudeepti Sharma J.) disposed of CWP-10656-2025 (O&M) filed by Mange Ram challenging notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all consequential actions for AY 2020-2021, on the ground that the Issuing Authority lacked jurisdiction in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. Finding the issue covered by Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 215092023, decided 29.07.2024) — coverage the Union of India did not dispute — the Court disposed of the petition in terms of those decisions, under which the revenue retains liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶1

CWP-10656-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

231 CWP-10656-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.04.2025

Mange Ram

....Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India & ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Peyush Pruthi, Mr. Nitish Bansal, Advocates for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V.Vedika Rao, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶15

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021.

¶16

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 .

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same.

¶18

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

¶19

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-

¶20

Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-10656-2025

¶22

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

(ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 09.04.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶28

Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mange Ram v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mange Ram v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Abhishek Anirudh Joshi Alias Abhishek Joshi Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Harbans Lal Vs Income Tax Officer and Others

Sanjeev Garg Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shelly Agrawal Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad and Others

Sarabjit Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others