Deepak Khandelwal HUF Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Deepak Khandelwal HUF Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024), which allowed writ petitions on the same issue 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 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all consequential actions for AY 2018-2019 were invalidly issued because the Issuing Authority lacked jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.

Court's answer

The writ petition challenging the Section 148 notice dated 31.08.2024 for AY 2018-2019 on the ground of want of jurisdiction of the Issuing Authority (in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power in the NFAC) is disposed of in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided on 29.07.2024), which had allowed writ petitions on the same issue with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Sudeepti Sharma, J., with Lisa Gill, J.) disposed of CWP-20096-2025 (O&M) filed by Deepak Khandelwal HUF against Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Gurugram &ors., decided on 18.07.2025. The petition challenged a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all consequential actions for AY 2018-2019, on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction to issue it, 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 petitioner contended the issue was covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (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 the Union of India did not dispute this. The Court disposed of the petition in terms of those judgments, and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

CWP-20096-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

126

CWP-20096-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.07.2025

Deepak Khandelwal HUF

....Petitioner

Vs.

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Gurugram &ors.

...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Puneet Aggarwal, Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Ms. Shruti Garg, Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019.

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.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

Gaurav Arora 2025.07.28 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-20096-2025

2

whole records of the case.

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 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.

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 18.07.2025

Gaurav Arora

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

Gaurav Arora 2025.07.28 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document