SHRI SACHIN GARG, RESIDENT OF 200/5 PATEL NAGAR, GURGAON, HARYANA 122001 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 (1) GURGAON AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11003/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01062494202521 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,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 the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cited cases, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The High Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned precedents. No specific issue was left undecided; the court followed established precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Sachin Garg, challenged notices issued under Section 148A(b), 148A(d), and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's submissions regarding the applicability of prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148A(b), 148A(d), and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2018-2019 are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices, relying on a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as covering the present issue. 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 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11003-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 163 CWP-11003-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-21.05.2025 Shri Sachin Garg ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 (1), Gurgaon & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Anshul Mittal and Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); show cause notice dated 01.08.2024 issued under Section 148 A (b) of the Act, 1961; order dated show cause notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019. 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 2025.05.26 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11003-2025 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 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; show cause notice dated 01.08.2024 issued under Section 148 A (b) of the Act, 1961; order dated show cause notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019 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. (LISA GILL)

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 21.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.26 14:38 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 →