Balvesh Nath Khanna Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Balvesh Nath Khanna Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income… — 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 (19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (29.07.2024) — which had 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; all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 17.04.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023, was issued without 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 the present writ petition is the same as the issue on which a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the writ petitions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024); learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute this.

Ratio / Principle

The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), i.e., with the same outcome as in those cases, under which the revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 148 notice — jurisdiction — NFAC exclusivity. Writ petition challenging notice dated 17.04.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all consequential actions for AY 2022-2023, on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 having specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the issue is covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 215092023 and other connected matters, decided 29.07.2024), in which identical 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; counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the coverage. Held, disposing of the writ petition in terms of both Co-ordinate Bench decisions; pending applications, if any, also disposed of. (Coram: Lisa Gill and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; judgment by Sudeepti Sharma, J.)

CWP-11863-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

169 CWP-11863-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-07.05.2025

Balvesh Nath Khanna

....Petitioner

Vs.

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle I, Faridabad & ors.

...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, 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 17.04.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023.

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 17.04.2025 issued Gaurav Arora 2025.05.13 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11863-2025

2

under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023 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 07.05.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

07.05.2025 Gaurav Arora

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.13 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document