Yogesh Garg Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Yogesh Garg Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024), which had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue by granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as 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 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2021-2022 by respondent No. 1 was issued without jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, wherein the NFAC has been specifically enumerated as having exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.

Court's answer

The controversy raised in the 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), and learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute this position.

Ratio / Principle

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.

Key takeaways

All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Income Tax - Notice under Section 148 - Jurisdiction - Notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2021-2022 by respondent No. 1 (ITO, Ward 2(3), Faridabad) challenged on the ground that, per the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, the NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices - Issue held covered by Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh v. Union of India (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024) - Counsel for the Union of India did not dispute coverage - Writ petition disposed of in terms of the said judgments, with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised - Pending applications disposed of.

CWP-9663-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

124

CWP-9663-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-04.04.2025

Yogesh Garg

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad & ors.

...Respondents

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

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

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

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) for AY 2021-2022.

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 2025.04.07 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-9663-2025

2

whole records of the case.

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2021-2022 issued by respondent No. 1, on the ground that he 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

04.04.2025

Gaurav Arora

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

Gaurav Arora 2025.04.07 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document