Disposed¶24

Rama Gupta v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jul 2025CWP/20129/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 Income Tax Act 1961 notice dated 28.05.2025 for AY 2022-2023; jurisdiction of Issuing Authority versus exclusive power of NFAC under CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022; writ disposed of in terms of Co-ordinate Bench precedents Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, 29.07.2024); liberty to revenue to proceed per statutory procedure; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; pending applications disposed.

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), 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. ¶24

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the Issuing Authority had jurisdiction to issue the notice dated 28.05.2025 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2022-2023, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. +1 more

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition raises the same issue already adjudicated by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), in which writ petitions on the same issue were allowed; learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute this coverage.

¶23

Key takeaways

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh decisions, with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CWP-20129-2025 (O&M), decided 18.07.2025 (Lisa Gill & Sudeepti Sharma JJ.; judgment authored by Sudeepti Sharma J.). Rama Gupta challenged a notice dated 28.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2022-2023, and all consequential actions, contending that 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. Holding the issue covered by its Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024) — a coverage the Union of India did not dispute — the Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of those decisions, granting 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 stood disposed of. No independent ruling was rendered on the jurisdiction question itself; the point was subsumed in the precedents followed.

¶1

CWP-20129-2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

134

¶4

CWP-20129-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.07.2025

Rama Gupta

....Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India & ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Ish Puneet Singh, Mr. Ravinder Singh, Mr. Sourav, Advocates for the petitioner.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶15

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 28.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023.

¶16

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 .

¶17

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

¶18

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶19

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

¶20

CWP-20129-2025

¶21

whole records of the case.

¶22

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28.05.2025 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

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

¶26

(LISA GILL) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 18.07.2025

¶27

Gaurav Arora

¶28

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

¶29

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

Rama Gupta v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama 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