MANISH KUMAR ALIAS MANISH KUMAR VIG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6032/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01034355202504 March 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously decided similar issues in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same grounds raised by the present petitioner. The Co-ordinate Bench had granted liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if they were so advised. Following these precedents, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in line with the earlier decisions, implying the quashing of the impugned notices and granting liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if permissible under law. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manish Kumar @ Manish Kumar Vig, challenged notices dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 and Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, citing a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, including the Income Tax Officer and Union of India, were represented by counsel. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard arguments from both sides.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 and Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notices, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vests exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, with the NFAC. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023). Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-6032-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 137

CWP-6032-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-04.03.2025 Manish Kumar @ Manish Kumar Vig ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Ambala and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, 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 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.03.07 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6032-2025 2 disputed the same.

4.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case.

5.

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); notice dated 29.03.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) 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. 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 04.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.07 17:36 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 →