Disposed¶25

Sandeep Gupta v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jul 2025CWP/20050/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jurisdiction to issue Section 148 notice; NFAC exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices; CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022; Section 148A(1) notice dated 18.03.2025 and Section 148A(3) order dated 27.06.2025; AY 2019-2020; writ petition disposed of following coordinate-bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 215092023, decided 29.07.2024); liberty to revenue to proceed under the Income Tax Act, 1961, if so advised; Punjab and Haryana High Court.

What did the court decide?

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); all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶25

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the Issuing Authority had jurisdiction to issue the notice dated 27.06.2025 under Section 148, the order dated 27.06.2025 under Section 148A(3) and the notice dated 18.03.2025 under Section 148A(1), and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices.

¶23

Court's answer

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed writ petitions on the same issue as raised in the present writ petition, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

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.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging (i) notice dated 27.06.2025 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (ii) order dated 27.06.2025 under Section 148A(3) and (iii) notice dated 18.03.2025 under Section 148A(1), along with all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020, on the ground that the Issuing Authority lacked jurisdiction in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which specifically vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. Following the coordinate-bench rulings in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 215092023, decided 29.07.2024), which allowed similar petitions with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute that the issue was covered.

¶1

CWP-20050-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

122

¶5

CWP-20050-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.07.2025

Sandeep Gupta

....Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India &ors.

...Respondents

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

¶12

Present: Mr. Satyam Aneja, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. Akshay Mittal, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶14

¶15

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶16

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 27.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 27.06.2025 issued under Section 148 A (3) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 18.03.2025 issued under Section 148 A(1) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020.

¶17

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 .

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Gaurav Arora 2025.07.28 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-20050-2025

¶22

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 27.06.2025 issued under Section 148 A (3) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 18.03.2025 issued under Section 148 A(1) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020 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 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶27

(LISA GILL) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 18.07.2025 Gaurav Arora

¶28

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

¶29

Gaurav Arora 2025.07.28 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sandeep Gupta v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Gupta v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Kundan Care Products Limited Vs Union of India and Others

Maj Gen Ms Chandhoke Retd Vs Union of India and Ors.

Harvinder Singh Vs State of Punjab through the Additional Chief Secretary Cum Financial Commissioner and Others

Rashi Khanna and Others Vs Union of India and Others

M/S Bhagya Foods and Wines Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Others