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

Tarsem Mangla 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 Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024), i.e., with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; pending applications, if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 22.03.2024 under Section 148A(b), order dated 15.04.2024 under Section 148A(d) and notice dated 15.04.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings, for AY 2017-2018, were issued without jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power in the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148.

Court's answer

The issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024), a position not disputed by learned counsel for Union of India; accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of those decisions.

Ratio / Principle

By disposing of the petition in terms of the said Co-ordinate Bench decisions, the same terms apply as in those decisions: the revenue is at liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-8086-2025 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana High Court (Bench: Arun Palli and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; judgment by Sudeepti Sharma, J.), decided 24.03.2025 — Tarsem Mangla v. Union of India & ors. The writ petition challenged (i) notice dt. 22.03.2024 under S.148A(b), (ii) order dt. 15.04.2024 under S.148A(d) and (iii) notice dt. 15.04.2024 under S.148, Income Tax Act 1961, with consequential proceedings, for AY 2017-2018, on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction in view of the CBDT circular/notification dt. 29.03.2022 specifically enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under S.148. Petitioner's counsel contended the issue was covered by Co-ordinate Bench rulings in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, dt. 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, dt. 29.07.2024); counsel for Union of India did not dispute this. The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of those rulings — which had allowed identical petitions while granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised — and disposed of all pending applications, if any.

CWP-8086-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

142

CWP-8086-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-24.03.2025

Tarsem Mangla

....Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India and ors. ...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Ms. Aakriti, Mr. Rishabh Singla, Advocates for the petitioner.

Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”); order dated 15.04.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 15.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings, for AY 2017-2018.

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

Gaurav Arora 2025.03.28 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8086-2025

2

disputed the same.

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

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 A (b) of the Act, 1961; order dated 15.04.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961; notice dated 15.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings, for AY 2017-2018 , 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

24.03.2025 Gaurav Arora

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

Gaurav Arora 2025.03.28 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document