SUNIL NAGPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2611/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01015485202530 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 its previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the Court had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the exclusive power vested in the NFAC by the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent, implying that the impugned proceedings were quashed, with liberty to the revenue to restart the process if permissible.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sunil Nagpal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, along with consequential proceedings, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner contended 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 revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuing authority had the jurisdiction to issue the order under Section 148A(b) and the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC. The assessee argued that the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, thereby rendering the impugned order and notice invalid due to lack of jurisdiction. The revenue did not dispute this contention and implicitly conceded that the issue is covered by prior judgments of the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-2611-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 143 CWP-2611-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-30.01.2025 Sunil Nagpal ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Abohar & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing counsel for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to order dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential 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. Gaurav Arora 2025.02.05 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-2611-2025 2 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 A(b) of the Act, 1961 and notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings, 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. 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 30.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.05 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →