Arun Kumar v. Income Tax Officer and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC27 May 2025CWP/15534/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 148 notice; Section 148 A(d) order; AY 2018-2019; NFAC exclusive jurisdiction; CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022; Issuing Authority jurisdiction; Income Tax Act, 1961; Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, 19.07.2024); Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, 29.07.2024); Punjab & Haryana High Court; writ petition disposed in terms of Co-ordinate Bench judgments.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (29.07.2024) — i.e., on the same terms as those Co-ordinate Bench judgments, which granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶¶26

Arun Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the Issuing Authority had jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148 A(d) dated 29.08.2024 for AY 2018-2019, given the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 stating that NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.

¶¶23

Court's answer

The writ petition raises the same issue as in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, and learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute that it is covered by those judgments.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

The Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh allowed writ petitions on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

In view of the foregoing, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided 29.07.2024).ratio¶¶26
All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Coram: LISA GILL and SUDEEPTI SHARMA, JJ.; judgment authored by SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.), CWP-15534-2025 (O&M), decided 27.05.2025. Arun Kumar challenged a notice dated 29.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the order dated 29.08.2024 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 in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. 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 and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024), which had allowed identical writ petitions with liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure, if so advised. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of those judgments; all pending applications were also disposed of.

¶1

CWP-15534-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

200

¶5

CWP-15534-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-27.05.2025

Arun Kumar

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward I,Yamuna Nagar and ors. ...Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶15

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 29.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 29.08.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019.

¶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. 21509-2023 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

¶19

Sonia Arora 2025.05.31 16:35 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶20

CWP-15534-2025

¶21

¶22

whole records of the case.

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 29.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 29.08.2024 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.

¶24

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s

¶25

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