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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), which had allowed such writ petitions while granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice under Section 148, order under Section 147 and demand notice under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2018-2019 were validly issued, given the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC.

Court's answer

The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024), i.e., on the same footing as those petitions concerning jurisdiction to issue Section 148 notices, with the consequence that the revenue may follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana HC (Sudeepti Sharma, J.; Lisa Gill, J.) — CWP-11157-2025 (O&M), decided 24.04.2025. Madan Singh challenged a notice dated 31.03.2024 under Section 148, an order dated 17.03.2025 under Section 147 and a demand notice dated 17.03.2025 under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019, contending the Issuing Authority lacked jurisdiction in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. Counsel for the Union of India did not dispute that the issue was covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024). The petition was disposed of in terms of those judgments, which had allowed similar writ petitions while granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure under the Act, 1961, if so advised. Pending applications, if any, also stood disposed of.

CWP-11157-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

186

CWP-11157-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-24.04.2025

Madan Singh

....Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India & ors.

...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Mr. Rsishabh Singla, Advocates, for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel for Ms, Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 17.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 17.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019.

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 .

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.01 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11157-2025

2

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

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

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 17.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 17.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, for AY 20182019 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.

(LISA GILL)	(SU	DEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE		JUDGE
24.04.2025
Gaurav Arora
	Whether speaking/reasoned	_:_Yes/No
	Whether reportable	_:_Yes/No

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.01 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document