Gagandeep Singh v. Income Tax Officer

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Apr 2025CWP/10737/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-10737-2025 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana, decided 09.04.2025 — Gagandeep Singh v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Hoshiarpur; Section 148 notice dated 06.04.2023 and Section 147/144 order dated 18.03.2025 for AY 2016-2017 challenged citing CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 (NFAC exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices); writ petition disposed with direction to Appellate Authority to decide pending appeal in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, 29.07.2024).

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh; all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶¶25

Gagandeep Singh Vs Income Tax Officer — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh; all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 and the order dated 18.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with consequential actions, for AY 2016-2017, are sustainable, given that the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC.

¶¶23

Court's answer

The issue involved in the writ petition is covered by the Co-ordinate Bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, which allowed writ petitions on the same issue, granting the revenue liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; counsel for Union of India did not dispute this.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner's appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh.

¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana HC, CWP-10737-2025 (O&M), decided 09.04.2025 (Arun Palli and Sudeepti Sharma JJ.; judgment authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J.) — Gagandeep Singh v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Hoshiarpur. Petition challenged notice dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and order dated 18.03.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144, with consequential actions, for AY 2016-2017, on the ground that per the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 the NFAC alone has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. Counsel contended the issue was covered by Co-ordinate Bench rulings in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), which allowed such writ petitions with liberty to the revenue to proceed under the Act; counsel for Union of India did not dispute. As the petitioner's appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal in terms of those judgments; pending applications also disposed.

¶1

CWP-10737-2025

¶2

¶3

N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

237

¶5

CWP-10737-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.04.2025

Gagandeep Singh

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Hoshiarpur

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate with Mr. Iqbal Roshan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶16

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 18.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, for AY 2016-2017.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the above 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 for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority.

¶18

Gaurav Arora 2025.04.11 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP-10737-2025

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 18.03.2025 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, for AY 2016-2017, 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

Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above.

¶26

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

¶27

(ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 09.04.2025 Gaurav Arora

¶28

Whether speaking/reasoned	_:_Yes/No
Whether reportable	_:_Yes/No

¶29

Gaurav Arora 2025.04.11 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gagandeep Singh v. Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gagandeep Singh v. Income Tax Officer

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