HIMANSHU GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10616/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01058594202509 April 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present writ petition was covered by the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior judgments. The court did not decide the merits of the jurisdictional issue independently but relied on the precedent. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Himanshu Gupta, challenged notices and orders issued under Sections 148, 147, 156, and 271 AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the contention 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 notices under Section 148. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Faridabad, and others. The matter was before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuing authority had the jurisdiction to issue the notice dated 20.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential orders and notices for AY 2020-2021, 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 impugned notices and orders. This was based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC. The petitioner relied on the judgments 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 contention regarding the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 156,Section 271 AAC (1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-10616-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 210

CWP-10616-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.04.2025 Himanshu Gupta ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal and Mr. Yash Gilhotra, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) 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 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 2025.04.10 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10616-2025 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 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) 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 09.04.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.10 16:08 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 →