RAMAN GUPTA SONS HUF vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO 1 PANIPAT AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1384/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01008292202520 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, similar writ petitions were allowed on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the notice was issued by an authority without jurisdiction, contrary to the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which grants exclusive power to the NFAC. The revenue did not contest this point. The operative direction is that the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Raman Gupta and Sons HUF, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice dated March 19, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Union of India, did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 19, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which designates the NFAC as having exclusive power to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by an authority without jurisdiction, relying on the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which stipulates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The petitioner cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as covering the present issue. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-1384-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 130 CWP-1384-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-20.01.2025 Raman Gupta and sons HUF ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms.Divya Arora and Mr. Amit Kaushik, Advocates for the petitioner Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate (Through VC) for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2020-2021. 2. 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 . 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.01.27 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1384-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2020-2021 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 20.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.27 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →