GAURAV GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18689/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01103279202509 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 established precedent set by a co-ordinate bench of the same court in similar matters. In those cases, writ petitions were allowed on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The ratio decidendi is that if a statutory authority acts beyond its jurisdiction, particularly in light of specific circulars or notifications, its actions are liable to be quashed. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the cited precedents, implying that the impugned notice and order were set aside, with the revenue having the option to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gaurav Gupta, challenged a notice dated 24.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated 24.06.2025 issued under Section 148A(3) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana, and others, did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 24.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order dated 24.06.2025 issued under Section 148A(3) of the Act, for AY 2019-2020, are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice and order as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148. The assessee relied on 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). Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-18689-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 169 CWP-18689-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.07.2025 Gaurav Gupta ...Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (1), Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura, Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Nikita Garg, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 24.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’); order dated 24.06.2025 issued under Section 148 A (3) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020. 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 the respondents has also not disputed the same. Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18689-2025 (O&M) 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 24.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 24.06.2025 issued under Section 148 A (3) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019- 2020, 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 09.07.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:51 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 →