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

Neelam Rani Vs Union of India and Others — 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 (19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (29.07.2024); all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Issuing Authority had jurisdiction to issue the notice dated 26.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2022-2023, given the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 stating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices.

Court's answer

The issue raised in this writ petition is 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), in which writ petitions on the same issue were allowed, with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

Ratio / Principle

The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-7954-2025 (O&M), Neelam Rani v. Union of India — Notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2022-2023, along with consequential actions, challenged on the ground that the Issuing Authority lacked jurisdiction, the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 having specifically vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. Counsel relied on 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 proceed accordingly, if so advised; learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the coverage. The Bench (Sudeepti Sharma, J., with Arun Palli, J.) disposed of the writ petition in terms of those judgments; pending applications, if any, also stood disposed of.

CWP-7954-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

127

CWP-7954-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-21.03.2025

Neelam Rani

....Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India and others

...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Anurag Sharma and Mr. Kapish Chawla, 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 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023.

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 2025.03.25 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7954-2025

2

whole records of the case.

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 26.03.2024 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.

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

21.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

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

Gaurav Arora 2025.03.25 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document