Manoj Kumar Dhillon Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Manoj Kumar Dhillon Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)… — 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), i.e., 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 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2021-2022 was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Issuing Authority had no power to issue it in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which enumerates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 - an issue contended to be covered by the Coordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh.

Court's answer

The issue raised in the present writ petition (challenge to the Section 148 notice dated 28.03.2025 for AY 2021-2022 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Issuing Authority vis-a-vis the NFAC's exclusive power under the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022) is covered by the Coordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), which allowed writ petitions raising the same issue; the appearance of the revenue did not dispute this.

Ratio / Principle

The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024).

Key takeaways

As part of the terms adopted from the Coordinate Bench decisions, the revenue is granted liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (CWP-12564-2025 (O&M), decided 05.05.2025; bench: Lisa Gill and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; judgment authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J.). Petitioner challenged notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all consequential actions for AY 2021-2022, contending that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction because the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. Counsel relied on the Coordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (decided 29.07.2024), and counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the coverage. Held: the writ petitions on the same issue were allowed by the Coordinate Bench with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of those two judgments, and pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

CWP-12564-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

164 CWP-12564-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-05.05.2025

Manoj Kumar Dhillon

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), 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 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 2021-2022.

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

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.07 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12564-2025

2

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.

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 05.05.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.07 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document