Rajinder Jindal through L/H Atul Jindal Vs Union of… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Rajinder Jindal through L/H Atul Jindal Vs Union of… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided 29.07.2024); pending applications, if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 27.03.2024 under Section 148 and the notice dated 03.03.2025 under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (with consequential actions), for AY 2020-2021, were issued without jurisdiction, given the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC.

Court's answer

The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024).

Ratio / Principle

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Coram: Arun Palli and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; opinion authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J.), CWP-7614-2025 (O&M), decision dated 19.03.2025. Petitioner Rajinder Jindal (through legal heir Atul Jindal) challenged, for AY 2020-2021, a notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and a notice dated 03.03.2025 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, 1961, along with consequential actions, contending that the Issuing Authority had no 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 for the Union of India did not dispute that the issue was covered by coordinate-bench decisions. Following Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024) — in which like writ petitions were allowed with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised — the Court disposed of the present writ petition in terms of those decisions; all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

CWP-7614-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

193

CWP-7614-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-19.03.2025

Rajinder Jindal through legal heir Atul Jindal

....Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India and ors. ...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Mr. Ramneek K. Sandhu & Mr. Rahul Advocates for the petitioner

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

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) and notice dated 03.03.2025 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act, 1961 and 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 the same.

Gaurav Arora 2025.03.24 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7614-2025

2

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

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) and notice dated 03.03.2025 issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act, 1961 and 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.

(ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE

19.03.2025 Gaurav Arora

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

Gaurav Arora 2025.03.24 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document