ANAND PRAKASH GARG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17899/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01096743202503 July 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, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. The reasoning was based on the fact that a co-ordinate bench of the High Court had previously allowed writ petitions on the same issue. In those prior cases, liberty was granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of these prior judgments. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anand Prakash Garg, challenged a notice dated March 29, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021, and all consequential actions. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue, represented by learned counsel, did not dispute this contention. The High Court had previously dealt with similar issues in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 29, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction, relying on the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC. The petitioner cited the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India as precedents. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-17899-2025 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 178

CWP-17899-2025 Date of decision: 03.07.2025 Anand Prakash Garg ...Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Faridabad & Ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta and Ms. Mamta Gupta, 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 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘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 2025.07.14 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17899-2025 [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 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 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. (LISA GILL) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

JUDGE JUDGE 03.07.2025 Gaurav Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.14 16:28 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 →