Disposed¶7

Chakshu Saggar v. Income Tax Officer and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC26 May 2025CWP/13725/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: CWP-13725-2025 (O&M); Punjab and Haryana High Court; Chakshu Saggar; Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1) Ludhiana; Section 148 notice 22.03.2024; Section 147 assessment order 27.03.2025; demand notice 27.03.2025; AY 2020-2021; Issuing Authority jurisdiction; NFAC exclusive power; CBDT circular/notification 29.03.2022; Jatinder Singh Bhangu CWP No. 15745-2024 decided 19.07.2024; Jasjit Singh CWP No. 215092023 decided 29.07.2024; disposed of in terms of Co-ordinate Bench judgments; liberty to revenue to follow procedure under Act, 1961; Income Tax Act, 1961.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (supra) and Jasjit Singh's case (supra); all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶7

Chakshu Saggar Vs Income Tax Officer and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (supra) and Jasjit Singh's case (supra); all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the Issuing Authority had jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice dated 22.03.2024, the Section 147 assessment order and demand notice dated 27.03.2025, and consequential actions for AY 2020-2021, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power in the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

In line with the Co-ordinate Bench decisions whose terms were adopted, liberty stands granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, and learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the same.

¶3

Key takeaways

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.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (CWP-13725-2025 (O&M), decided 26.05.2025; coram Lisa Gill and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; opinion by Sudeepti Sharma, J.) disposed of a writ petition by Chakshu Saggar challenging notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, assessment order dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 147, demand notice dated 27.03.2025 and all consequential actions for AY 2020-2021, 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 Section 148 notices. The issue was held covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 215092023 and other connected matters, decided 29.07.2024), which the Union of India did not dispute; the petition was disposed of in terms of those judgments, with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. Pending applications, if any, also stood disposed of.

¶1

CWP-13725-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

168 CWP-13725-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-26.05.2025

Chakshu Saggar

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 7 (1), Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate Ms Mamta Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶12

¶13

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶14

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 27.03.2025 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.29 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP-13725-2025

¶20

¶21

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 27.03.2025 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24