NITESH MANGLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17661/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01097386202501 July 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 others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). These previous judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's argument that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential actions, with liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if permissible under the law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nitesh Mangla, challenged a notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The challenge was directed against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Faridabad, and others. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by learned Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

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 on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, as per 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 notice was issued without jurisdiction, relying on a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly states 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 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 contention: The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the issue being covered by the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-17661-2025 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 193

CWP-17661-2025 Date of decision: 01.07.2025 Nitesh Mangla ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Faridabad & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, 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 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 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 2025.07.04 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17661-2025 [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 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 01.07.2025 Gaurav Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.04 16:09 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 →