DEVINDER PAUL GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10106/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01056121202508 April 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 previous judgments by a Co-ordinate Bench 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 writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench, which had addressed the jurisdictional issue arising from the CBDT circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the present petition in line with those judgments, implying that the impugned notices and orders were set aside, with a possibility for the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Devinder Paul Gupta, has challenged a notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 28.03.2025 under Section 147, a demand notice, and a penalty show cause notice, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-2021. The core of the challenge is that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by learned Senior Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 28.03.2025 under Section 147, and consequential notices are invalid for want of jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 147 of the Act, 1961, and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which reserves the exclusive power for the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10106-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 155 CWP-10106-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-08.04.2025 Devinder Paul Gupta ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (1), Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate Ms. Uma Bharti, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961, demand notice and penalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 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 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 whole records of the case. Gaurav Arora 2025.04.09 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10106-2025 2 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961, demand notice and penalty show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 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 08.04.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.09 10:44 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 →