Disposed¶25

Neelam Rani v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Mar 2025CWP/7535/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jurisdictional challenge to a Section 148 Income Tax Act, 1961 notice dated 26.03.2024 for AY 2020-2021 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court; turns on the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. Disposed of purely on precedent, in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, 29.07.2024), without independent adjudication; useful as a citable instance of the NFAC-jurisdiction line of writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024); all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶25

Neelam Rani 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 notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2020-2021 was validly issued — specifically, whether the Issuing Authority had jurisdiction to issue it in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 in the NFAC.

¶23

Court's answer

The issue raised in the writ petition is covered by the coordinate-bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), and learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the same.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The present writ petition is disposed of, in terms of the coordinate-bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided on 29.07.2024).

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh — CWP-7535-2025 (O&M), decided 19.03.2025; coram Arun Palli and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ. (judgment by Sudeepti Sharma, J.). Petitioner Neelam Rani challenged a notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all consequential actions for AY 2020-2021, on the ground that the Issuing Authority lacked jurisdiction in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. Counsel contended the issue stood covered by the coordinate-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); counsel for the Union of India did not dispute this. Held: the writ petition is disposed of in terms of both coordinate-bench decisions, and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶1

CWP-7535-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

157 CWP-7535-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-19.03.2025

Neelam Rani

....Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶11

Present: Mr. Anurag Sharma and Mr. Kapish Chawla, Advocates for the petitioner

¶12

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶15

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021.

¶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 2025.03.24 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-7535-2025

¶21

¶22

whole records of the case.

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 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.

¶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