Disposed¶26

Pinki Gupta v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Faridabad and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Mar 2025CWP/7791/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-7791-2025 (O&M); Pinki Gupta v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Faridabad; Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; decision 20.03.2025; Section 148 Income Tax Act 1961 notice dated 09.03.2024; AY 2020-2021; jurisdiction of issuing authority; NFAC exclusive jurisdiction; CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022; follows Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024); writ petition disposed of in terms of co-ordinate bench rulings; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024); all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶26

Pinki Gupta Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Faridabad… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 09.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequential actions for AY 2020-2021 are sustainable, given the petitioner's ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerating that NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices.

¶24

Court's answer

The issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the Co-ordinate Bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), and learned counsel appearing for Union of India has not disputed the same.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

In view of the coverage by the said Co-ordinate Bench decisions, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024).

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Coram: Arun Palli and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; judgment authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J.) disposed of CWP-7791-2025 (O&M), filed by Pinki Gupta against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Faridabad and others, challenging notice dated 09.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequential actions for AY 2020-2021. The petitioner's ground was that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 specifically enumerating that NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. Holding the issue covered by the 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), where writ petitions on the same issue were allowed with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure under the Act, 1961, and with counsel for the Union of India not disputing coverage, the Court disposed of the petition in terms of those judgments; pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶1

CWP-7791-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

165

¶5

CWP-7791-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-20.03.2025

Pinki Gupta

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Faridabad & ors.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶16

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 09.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential actions, for AY 2020-2021.

¶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. 21509-2023 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

¶20

Gaurav Arora 2025.03.25 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-7791-2025

¶22

¶23

whole records of the case.

¶24

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 09.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 20.03.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶29

Gaurav Arora 2025.03.25 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pinki Gupta v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Faridabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pinki Gupta v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Faridabad 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajinder Jindal through L/H Atul Jindal Vs Union of India and Others

Neelam Rani Vs Union of India and Others

Snehlata Jassal Vs Union of India and Others

Pooja Saraf Vs Union of India and Others

Open Door Welfare Society Vs Union of India and Others

Ashok Chandna Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 Faridabad and Others