NARENDER BHARGAV vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2231/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01013485202528 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (decided on 29.07.2024). These previous judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The High Court found that the issue raised in the present writ petition was covered by these precedents. Consequently, the notice dated 13.04.2023 and consequential proceedings were set aside, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings following the correct procedure. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Narender Bhargav, challenged a notice dated 13.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, represented by the Union of India, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 13.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings for AY 2019-2020 are invalid on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power with the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, turning on Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which grants exclusive power to the NFAC. The petitioner relies on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. 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-2231-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 137 CWP-2231-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-28.01.2025 Narender Bhargav

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsa & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishal Sharda, Advocates for the petitioner Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V.Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 13.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and consequential proceedings, for AY 2019-2020. 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 2025.01.30 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-2231-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 13.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings, for AY 2019-2020, 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. 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 28.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.30 14:40 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 →