Manish Gupta Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Manish Gupta Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… — 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), i.e., relief consistent with those cases in which such writ petitions were allowed with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Issuing Authority had jurisdiction to issue the notice dated 28.03.2025 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2019-2020, given the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices.

Court's answer

The issue involved in the present writ petition — challenge to the notice dated 28.03.2025 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2019-2020 — is covered by the Co-ordinate Bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), and learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute this.

Ratio / Principle

On the same issue, the Co-ordinate Bench allowed the writ petitions by granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

Key takeaways

The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024).ratio¶¶23
All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh (coram: Lisa Gill and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; opinion by Sudeepti Sharma, J.) — CWP-11331-2025 (O&M), decided 25.04.2025. Manish Gupta v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 Faridabad & ors. Challenge to notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020, on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which enumerates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. Holding: the issue is 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 writ petition is disposed of in terms of those decisions, with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. Pending applications, if any, disposed of.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

152 CWP-11331-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-25.04.2025

Manish Gupta

....Petitioner

Vs.

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 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 2019-2020.

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 2025.05.01 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2

under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020, 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 25.04.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

25.04.2025 Gaurav Arora

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.01 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document