RAKESH AGGARWAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10169/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01056030202508 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 with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. These prior judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act if advised. The court acknowledged that the petitioner had challenged the Section 148 notice based on a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which indicated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such notices. Since an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority, the court directed that the appeal be decided in line with the aforementioned precedents. No specific issue was left undecided; the court's action was procedural, directing the appellate authority to adjudicate based on established legal principles.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rakesh Aggarwal, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022, and all consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by previous judgments of a co-ordinate bench of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. The petitioner also stated that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions. The High Court noted that the notice was issued in view of a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022 is invalid, considering the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The issue is covered by the judgments of this Court 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). - The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which is pending. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10169-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 171 CWP-10169-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-08.04.2025 Rakesh Aggarwal ...Petitioner Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Pkl. & anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the above 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority. 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same. Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10169-2025 2 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022 , 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. Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above. 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 2025.04.10 16:07 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →