Disposed¶25

Garima Gupta v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Faridabad and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC12 May 2025CWP/11968/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 Income Tax Act 1961 notice; jurisdiction of issuing authority; CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022; NFAC exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices; AY 2021-2022; reassessment notice challenge; covered by coordinate Bench rulings Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP 15745-2024, 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (29.07.2024); writ petition disposed of in terms of precedents; Punjab and Haryana High Court; CWP-11968-2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (29.07.2024), which granted 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. ¶25

Garima Gupta Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Faridabad… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2021-2022 was issued without jurisdiction by the Issuing Authority, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, which allowed writ petitions on the same issue, and the appearance for the Union of India did not dispute this coverage.

¶24

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), i.e., with the same relief as therein, including liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly if so advised.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Lisa Gill and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; judgment authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J.), CWP-11968-2025 (O&M), decided 12.05.2025 — Garima Gupta v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Faridabad & ors. The petition challenged a notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequential actions for AY 2021-2022, on the ground that the Issuing Authority lacked jurisdiction, the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 having vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. Holding the issue covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), which the Union of India did not dispute, and which granted liberty to the revenue to follow the statutory procedure, the Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of those judgments; pending applications were likewise disposed of.

¶1

CWP-11968-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

150 CWP-11968-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-12.05.2025

Garima Gupta

....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 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, 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. 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 28.03.2025 issued

¶20

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.16 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-11968-2025

¶22

¶23

under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022 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 12.05.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶28

12.05.2025 Gaurav Arora

¶29

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.16 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Garima Gupta v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Faridabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Garima Gupta v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Faridabad and Others

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

Principal Commissioner of Income TAX1 Amritsar Vs Ms Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd.

Gurmeet Singh Vs Ld Financial Commissioner Appeals Punjab and Others

Gagandeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sandeep Arora Vs Union of India and Others

Julfan Mohd. Vs State of Haryana and Others

The Bhiwani Jagdamba Coop L & C Society Vs State of Haryana and Others