Mukesh Kumar Marya v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2025CWP/9240/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-9240-2025 (O&M), P&H HC DB, decided 01.04.2025; Mukesh Kumar Marya v. Union of India; notice dt. 27.03.2024 under S. 148, Income Tax Act 1961, AY 2020-2021; jurisdictional challenge based on CBDT circular/notification dt. 29.03.2022 (NFAC exclusive power to issue S. 148 notices); disposed of in terms of co-ordinate Bench rulings Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, dt. 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, dt. 29.07.2024); UoI counsel did not dispute coverage.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of 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); pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶¶26

Mukesh Kumar Marya Vs Union of India and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2020-2021, and all consequential actions, are vitiated for want of jurisdiction of the Issuing Authority, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. +1 more

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

The Court proceeded on the position, urged by counsel for the petitioner and not disputed by counsel appearing for Union of India, that the writ petition is covered by the co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh.

¶¶3

Key takeaways

The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided on 29.07.2024), under which similar writ petitions were allowed with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.ratio¶¶26
All pending applications, if any, in the writ petition also stand disposed of.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Division Bench: Arun Palli and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; judgment penned by Sudeepti Sharma, J.) — CWP-9240-2025 (O&M), decided on 01.04.2025: Challenge to notice dated 27.03.2024 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 had no jurisdiction, the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 having specifically vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. Held: the issue is covered by the co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023 and other connected matters, decided on 29.07.2024), a position not disputed by counsel for Union of India; the writ petition was disposed of in terms of those decisions, and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶1

CWP-9240-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

168

¶5

CWP-9240-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-01.04.2025

Mukesh Kumar Marya

...Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India & others

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Mr. Nazuk Singhal & Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-department.

¶14

¶15

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶16

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 all consequential 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 2025.04.04 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-9240-2025

¶22

¶23

whole records of the case.

¶24

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27.03.2024 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.

¶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 01.04.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶29

Gaurav Arora 2025.04.04 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mukesh Kumar Marya v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Marya v. Union of India 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

Shimpu Goyal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Shimpu Goyal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Ankur Narula Ministry Society Vs Union of India and Others

Shinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Balkar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Aareen Healthcare Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others