Bharat Bhushan Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Faridabad… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Bharat Bhushan Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Faridabad… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), i.e., on the same terms as those petitions, which were allowed with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 23.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2022-2023 (and consequential actions) was issued without jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 stating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148.

Court's answer

The issue raised in the present writ petition is the same as that decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024); accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of those two decisions.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-17561-2025 (Punjab & Haryana HC, decided 01.07.2025; Lisa Gill & Sudeepti Sharma JJ., judgment by Sudeepti Sharma, J.). Bharat Bhushan challenged a notice dated 23.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequential actions for AY 2022-2023, contending the Issuing Authority lacked jurisdiction because the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. Counsel for the petitioner showed the matter was covered by Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh v. Union of India (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024), where similar petitions were allowed with liberty to the revenue to proceed under the Act, 1961 if so advised; counsel for the Union of India did not dispute this. The Court disposed of the petition in terms of those decisions and also disposed of pending applications.

CWP-17561-2025 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

166

CWP-17561-2025 Date of decision: 01.07.2025

Bharat Bhushan

...Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Faridabad and others ...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate 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 23.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961) and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023.

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.

Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not

disputed the same.

Gaurav Arora 2025.07.04 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17561-2025 [2]

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

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 23.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023 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

01.07.2025

Gaurav

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

Gaurav Arora 2025.07.04 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document