Disposed¶7

Smart Homes v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4) Faridabad and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Apr 2025CWP/10686/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 notice; Income Tax Act 1961; AY 2021-2022; jurisdictional challenge; NFAC exclusive power; CBDT circular/notification 29.03.2022; Jatinder Singh Bhangu CWP No. 15745-2024 decided 19.07.2024; Jasjit Singh CWP No. 21509-2023 decided 29.07.2024; writ disposed in terms of Co-ordinate Bench rulings; Smart Homes v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4) Faridabad; Punjab & Haryana High Court; LISA GILL & SUDEEPTI SHARMA JJ.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024); all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶7

Smart Homes Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4) Faridabad… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2021-2022 was without 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

¶5

Ratio / Principle

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case allowed writ petitions raising the same issue as raised in the present petition, namely challenge to a Section 148 notice on the ground that, per the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such notices, granting the revenue liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

¶6

Key takeaways

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.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CWP-10686-2025 (O&M), decided 21.04.2025 (Coram: LISA GILL and SUDEEPTI SHARMA JJ.; judgment authored by SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.). Smart Homes challenged a notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2021-2022 on the ground that the issuing officer 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. Counsel for the petitioner contended the matter was covered by Co-ordinate 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 (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024), in which identical writ petitions were allowed with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure under the 1961 Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised; learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute this. Holding that the Co-ordinate Bench had allowed writ petitions on the same issue, the Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of those two judgments; all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶1

CWP-10686-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

144

¶5

CWP-10686-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-21.04.2025

Smart Homes

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (4), Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶11

Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶15

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) for AY 2021-2022.

¶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. 21509-2023 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

¶19

Gaurav Arora 2025.04.23 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-10686-2025

¶21

¶22

whole records of the case.

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2021-2022, on the ground that he 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