Sanjiv Tuli v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Pathankot and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2025CWP/12818/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 notice; jurisdiction of issuing authority; NFAC exclusive power; CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022; AY 2021-2022; Income Tax Act, 1961; disposal in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP 15745-2024, 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP 215092023, 29.07.2024); Punjab and Haryana High Court; writ disposed; liberty to revenue to proceed under the Act.

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), with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; all pending applications disposed of. ¶¶27

Sanjiv Tuli Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Pathankot and… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶27

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 validly issued, given the petitioner's contention that 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.

¶¶24

Court's answer

The issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 215092023, decided 29.07.2024), and learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute this.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

The 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 liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised — and all pending applications stand disposed of.

¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

P&H HC (CWP-12818-2025 (O&M), decided 06.05.2025; Lisa Gill & Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; judgment by Sudeepti Sharma, J.): Writ petition challenging notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022, disposed of in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 215092023, decided 29.07.2024), on the petitioner's plea that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 having vested exclusive power in the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices; counsel for the Union of India did not dispute coverage; revenue granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

CWP-12818-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

178

¶5

CWP-12818-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-06.05.2025

Sanjiv Tuli

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Pathankot & ors.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶14

¶15

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same.

¶19

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case.

¶20

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued

¶21

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.12 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CWP-12818-2025

¶23

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

06.05.2025 Gaurav Arora

¶30

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.12 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sanjiv Tuli v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Pathankot and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjiv Tuli v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Pathankot 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

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