NARENDER GUPTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15405/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01085424202527 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously decided similar issues in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same grounds raised in the present petition, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act if 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 petition in terms of the prior judgments, implying that the notice under Section 148 was quashed due to lack of jurisdiction, with the revenue having the option to re-issue it correctly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Narender Gupta, challenged a notice dated 17.04.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-2023. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice, citing a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Faridabad, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh considered the submissions of both parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 17.04.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The petitioner cited 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) as covering the present issue. Revenue's Contentions: 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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-15405-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 179 CWP-15405-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-27.05.2025 Narender Gupta

....Petitioner Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate Ms Mamta Gupta, Advocate, 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 17.04.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023. 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. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 17.04.2025 issued Gaurav Arora 2025.05.29 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-15405-2025 2 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023 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 27.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.29 18:35 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 →