Ram Niwas Phaugat Vs Income Tax Officer and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Ram Niwas Phaugat 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 vs. Union of India and others (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (decided 29.07.2024); per those Co-ordinate Bench decisions on the same issue, the writ petitions were allowed with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024 under Section 148 and the order dated 31.08.2024 under Section 148 A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2018-2019 were validly issued by the Issuing Authority, given the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the present writ petition in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 215092023, decided 29.07.2024), counsel for the Union of India having raised no dispute that the issue was covered by those judgments.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP-13993-2025 (O&M)) by Ram Niwas Phaugat challenging the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961, and all consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019, served by/responding authorities including the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Gurgaon, on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, since the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 expressly vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. Counsel for the petitioner contended the issue was covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 215092023, decided 29.07.2024), which allowed identical petitions granting the revenue liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 if so advised; counsel for the Union of India did not dispute this. Hearing both sides and perusing the record, the Bench disposed of the petition in terms of those judgments, with pending applications also disposed of. Judgment under SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.; Bench comprising LISA GILL and SUDEEPTI SHARMA; decided 15.05.2025.

CWP-13993-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

161 CWP-13993-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-15.05.2025

Ram Niwas Phaugat

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Gurgaon & ors.

...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019.

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.

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

CWP-13993-2025

2

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019, 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 15.05.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

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