Disposed¶22

Nitesh Mangla v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Faridabad and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2025CWP/17661/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 Income Tax Act 1961; notice dated 30.03.2025; AY 2021-2022; jurisdiction of Issuing Authority; CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022; NFAC exclusive power to issue Section 148 notice; faceless assessment; Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024; Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024; Nitesh Mangla v. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Faridabad; CWP-17661-2025; Punjab and Haryana High Court; writ petition disposed of in terms of Co-ordinate Bench precedents; liberty to revenue to proceed under Act 1961 if so advised.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (supra) and Jasjit Singh's case (supra); all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶22

Nitesh Mangla Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)… — 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 (supra) and Jasjit Singh's case (supra); all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2021-2022 was issued without jurisdiction by the Issuing Authority, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power in the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices. +1 more

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The issue 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), which allowed identical writ petitions with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure under the Act, 1961 if so advised, and the Union of India not disputing coverage, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of those decisions.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Coram: Lisa Gill and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; judgment authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J.) disposed of CWP-17661-2025 filed by Nitesh Mangla challenging notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022. The petitioner contended that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 specifically enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the issue was covered by 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 allowed similar writ petitions with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly if so advised; learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute this. Holding the issue covered, the Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of those decisions, and all pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

¶1

CWP-17661-2025 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

193

¶4

CWP-17661-2025 Date of decision: 01.07.2025

Nitesh Mangla

...Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Faridabad & others ...Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶14

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961) and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022.

¶15

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.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same.

¶17

Gaurav Arora 2025.07.04 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-17661-2025 [2]

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.03.2025 issued 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23