SHASHI BHUSHAN GUPTA vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15495/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01085922202527 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously allowed writ petitions on the same issue in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure. In the present case, since an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments. The court did not decide the validity of the Section 148 notice on merits but directed the appellate authority to consider it in light of the precedents. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shashi Bhushan Gupta, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 24.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-2023, 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 and Jasjit Singh cases. The petitioner also stated that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The respondents, including the CBDT, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 24.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023 is valid, considering the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 which vests exclusive power to issue such notices in the NFAC. Assessee's contention: The issue is covered by the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, which dealt with similar challenges to Section 148 notices. The petitioner also noted that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. Revenue's contention: 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-15495-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 196 CWP-15495-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-27.05.2025 Shashi Bhushan Gupta ....Petitioner Vs. C.B.D.T,New Delhi & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Divya Suri & Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mittal, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 24.03.2025 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. 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. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.05.29 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-15495-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 24.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023, 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. (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 →