Disposed¶7

Deepak Kumar v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 Faridabad and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2025CWP/13941/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 Income Tax Act 1961 notice; jurisdictional challenge; NFAC exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices; CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022; AY 2021-2022; writ petition disposed of following Co-ordinate Bench rulings in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (29.07.2024); liberty to revenue to proceed under the Act; CWP-13941-2025 (O&M); High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Deepak Kumar vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle I, Faridabad.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh’s case (decided 29.07.2024); all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶7

Deepak Kumar Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… — 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 (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh’s case (decided 29.07.2024); all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2021-2022, and all consequential actions, were bad in law on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting the NFAC with exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices.

¶5

Court's answer

The 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 (decided 29.07.2024), which allowed writ petitions raising the same issue as to jurisdiction to issue Section 148 notices, and the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of those decisions.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Consistently with the Co-ordinate Bench decisions whose terms were adopted, the revenue remains at liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Lisa Gill and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; judgment authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J.) disposed of CWP-13941-2025 (O&M) filed by Deepak Kumar challenging a notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all consequential actions for AY 2021-2022 (respondents including the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle I, Faridabad). The challenge rested on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, since the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 specifically vests the NFAC with exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. Learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute that the issue was covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (decided 29.07.2024), which had allowed identical writ petitions while granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure under the Act, 1961. The petition was accordingly disposed of in terms of those judgments, and all pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

CWP-13941-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

147 CWP-13941-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-15.05.2025

Deepak Kumar

....Petitioner

Vs.

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle I, 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 29.03.2025 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 29.03.2025 issued

¶20

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.21 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-13941-2025

¶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 15.05.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶28

15.05.2025 Gaurav Arora

¶29

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.21 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Deepak Kumar v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 Faridabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 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

Shamsher Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Kirpal Singh Vs District Magistrate Cum Presiding Officer and Another

Amarjit Singh Grewal Vs Income Tax Officer and Others

Aman Batra Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Mani Ram Balwant Rai HUF Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Ram Niwas Phaugat Vs Income Tax Officer and Others