Gulshan Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Gulshan Kumar 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 Co-ordinate Bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), i.e., the challenge to the notice dated 28.03.2025 under Section 148 for AY 2021-2022 stands accepted on the jurisdictional ground, with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2021-2022 (with consequential actions) is invalid because 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.

Court's answer

The issue raised in this petition is covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), which allowed identical writ petitions challenging Section 148 notices on the same jurisdictional ground, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 if so advised; learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute this.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the coverage by the said Co-ordinate Bench judgments, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (29.07.2024), and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Division Bench: Lisa Gill and Sudeepti Sharma JJ.; judgment authored by Sudeepti Sharma J.) disposed of CWP-11158-2025 (O&M), Gulshan Kumar v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Faridabad & ors. The petitioner challenged notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022, contending that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction because the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. Holding the issue 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) - which the Union of India did not dispute - the Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of those judgments, which had granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. Pending applications were also disposed of.

CWP-11158-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

187 CWP-11158-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-24.04.2025

Gulshan Kumar

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate

Ms. Mamta Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022.

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.

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

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued

Gaurav Arora 2025.04.28 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11158-2025

2

under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022, 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) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE

24.04.2025 Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

Gaurav Arora 2025.04.28 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document