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

Vinod Agarwal 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 Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024); all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2015-2016, and all consequential actions, were vitiated because the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed writ petitions raising the same issue (challenge to Section 148 notices on the ground of lack of issuing authority's jurisdiction), granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly if so advised.

Key takeaways

Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute that the issue is covered by the said Co-ordinate Bench decisions.ratio¶3
The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided 29.07.2024).ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Income Tax - Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2015-2016 - Challenge to notice dated 31.08.2024 and consequential actions on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 having specifically vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC - Issue held covered by Co-ordinate Bench decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (CWP No. 215092023, decided 29.07.2024), which allowed like writ petitions while leaving the revenue liberty to follow the procedure under the Act, 1961 - Learned counsel for Union of India did not dispute coverage - Writ petition disposed of in terms of the said decisions; pending applications disposed of. Coram: Lisa Gill and Sudeepti Sharma JJ.; judgment by Sudeepti Sharma, J.

CWP-11338-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

154 CWP-11338-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-25.04.2025

Vinod Agarwal

....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 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2015-2016.

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 31.08.2024 issued

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

CWP-11338-2025

2

under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2015-2016, 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

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