Vicky Goyal Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors. — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Vicky Goyal Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors. — 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 (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided 29.07.2024); all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 01.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 02.03.2024 and the demand notice for AY 2018-2019 are bad in law because the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. +1 more

Court's answer

Consistently with the terms of the precedents in which writ petitions were allowed on the same issue, the disposal carries liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

Ratio / Principle

The issue in the present writ petition being covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided 29.07.2024), the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of those decisions.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CWP-14991-2025 (O&M), decided 23.05.2025 (bench: Lisa Gill and Sudeepti Sharma JJ.; order authored by Sudeepti Sharma J.). Vicky Goyal challenged notice dated 01.04.2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order and demand notice dated 02.03.2024, and consequential actions for AY 2018-2019, contending the Issuing Authority lacked jurisdiction because the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices. Counsel relied on Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), which had allowed writ petitions on the identical issue with liberty to the revenue to proceed under the Act, 1961 if so advised; the Union of India did not dispute coverage. Held: writ petition disposed of in terms of both rulings; pending applications disposed.

CWP-14991-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

121 CWP-14991-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-23.05.2025

Vicky Goyal

....Petitioner

Vs.

C.B.D.T,New Delhi & ors.

...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Yogesh Kr. Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 01.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 02.03.2024; demand notice dated 02.03.2024 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.

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 01.04.2022 issued

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.28 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-14991-2025

2

under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 02.03.2024; demand notice dated 02.03.2024 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

23.05.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.28 14:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document