Disposed¶25

Ashish Batra v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Sonepat and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2025CWP/11646/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 148 notice; Income Tax Act 1961; AY 2020-2021; NFAC exclusive jurisdiction; CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022; Issuing Authority jurisdiction; covered by Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (29.07.2024); disposed in terms of Co-ordinate Bench rulings; liberty to revenue to proceed under the Act; CWP-11640-2025 (O&M); High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Honey Bhalla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Faridabad.

What did the court decide?

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. ¶25

Ashish Batra Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Sonepat and Ors. — 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.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2020-2021 (and consequential actions) was validly issued, given that, per the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148.

¶23

Court's answer

The writ petition, being covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024) on the same issue — which the Union of India counsel did not dispute — is disposed of in terms of those judgments.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

By disposing of the petition in terms of the said precedents, the Court adopted their terms, under which the revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Bench: Lisa Gill and Sudeepti Sharma JJ.; judgment authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J.), CWP-11640-2025 (O&M), decided 06.05.2025. The petitioner challenged a notice dated 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2020-2021 and all consequential actions, contending that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction since the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. Counsel for the petitioner submitted the issue was covered by Co-ordinate 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 (decided 29.07.2024), which had allowed writ petitions on the same issue with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure under the Act, 1961 if so advised; counsel for the Union of India did not dispute this. The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of those judgments; pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

¶1

CWP-11640-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

151 CWP-11640-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-06.05.2025

Honey Bhalla

....Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶9

...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 present petition is to notice dated 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021.

¶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. 215092023 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 whole records of the case.

¶19

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 20.03.2024 issued

¶20

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-11640-2025

¶22

¶23

under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021 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.

¶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

All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶27

(LISA GILL) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 06.05.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶28

06.05.2025 Gaurav Arora

¶29

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.12 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ashish Batra v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Sonepat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Batra v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Sonepat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Haryana Urban Development Authority Now Known as Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran Vs State of Haryana

Commissioner of Income Tax I Vs M/S Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana Vs M/S Narula Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Shalinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Big Daddy and Company Vs Union of India I and Ors.

Sandeep Arora Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 Faridabad and Others