Disposed¶7

Honey Bhalla v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Faridabad and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Apr 2025CWP/11162/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 Income Tax Act 1961 notice; jurisdiction challenge; CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022; NFAC exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices; AY 2021-2022; ITO Ward 1(3) Faridabad; writ petition disposed in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, 29.07.2024); Punjab & Haryana High Court; decision date 24.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024); all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶7

Honey Bhalla Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) 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 by respondent No. 1 (ITO, Ward 1(3), Faridabad) 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.

¶5

Court's answer

The issue raised in the writ petition being covered by the Coordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), and learned counsel for the Union of India not disputing the same, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of those decisions.

¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Lisa Gill and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma; judgment authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J.), CWP-11162-2025 (O&M), decided 24.04.2025. Honey Bhalla challenged a notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Faridabad (respondent No. 1) for AY 2021-2022 and consequential proceedings, contending that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which specifically vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. Following the Coordinate 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), which allowed identical writ petitions with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly if so advised, and with learned counsel for the Union of India not disputing the coverage, the Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of those decisions; all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶1

CWP-11162-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

189

¶5

CWP-11162-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-24.04.2025

Honey Bhalla

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), 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, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶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”) and conseuqential proceedings, 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 2025.05.01 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-11162-2025

¶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 issued by respondent No. 1, 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