Abhishek Jain Vs Union of India and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Abhishek Jain Vs Union of India and Others — 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); per those decisions, liberty remains with the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notices/orders issued for AY 2020-2021 (notice dated 29.02.2024 under Section 148, order dated 29.02.2024 under Section 148A(d), notice dated 20.08.2024 under Section 142(1), notice dated 26.03.2025 under Section 148A(1) of the Act, 1961, and consequential actions) were validly issued, given 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

Consistent with the precedent terms adopted here, liberty is left to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

Ratio / Principle

The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024), which had allowed writ petitions on the same jurisdictional issue.

Key takeaways

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Sudeepti Sharma, J., bench incl. Lisa Gill, J.) disposed of a writ petition by Abhishek Jain v. Union of India and others (CWP-18064-2025, decided 04.07.2025) challenging, for AY 2020-2021, the notice dated 29.02.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the order dated 29.02.2024 under Section 148A(d), the notice dated 20.08.2024 under Section 142(1), the notice dated 26.03.2025 under Section 148A(1), and all consequential actions, on the jurisdictional ground that the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. Counsel for the revenue did not dispute that the issue is covered by the Co-ordinate Bench rulings in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, 29.07.2024); the petition was accordingly disposed of in terms of those rulings, which grant the revenue liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. All pending applications were likewise disposed of.

CWP-18064-2025 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

127

CWP-18064-2025 Date of decision: 04.07.2025

Abhishek Jain

...Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others ...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate assisted by Ms. Alisha Chawla, Ms. Ambika Jindal, Mr. Aditya Gupta and Mr. Atharav Prabhakar, Advocates for the petitioner.

Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel (Through VC) Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondents.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 29.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’); order dated 29.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 20.08.2024 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 26.03.2025 issued under Sections 148 A(1) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021.

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

Gaurav Arora 2025.07.14 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18064-2025 [2]

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 29.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 29.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 20.08.2024 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 26.03.2025 issued under Sections 148 A(1) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021 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

04.07.2025

Gaurav

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

Gaurav Arora 2025.07.14 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document