DEEPAK KHANDELWAL HUF vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/20094/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110427202518 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The present judgment follows this precedent, effectively quashing the impugned notice and consequential actions for lack of jurisdiction, while permitting the revenue to re-initiate the process if they choose to do so in accordance with the law. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited judgments.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Deepak Khandelwal HUF, has filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential actions for Assessment Year 2017-2018. The petitioner's primary contention is that the authority issuing the notice lacked jurisdiction, 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 respondents, represented by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-2018 is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argues that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vests the exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC. The petitioner relies 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 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-20094-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125 CWP-20094-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.07.2025 Deepak Khandelwal HUF ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Gurugram &ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Puneet Aggarwal, Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Ms. Shruti Garg, Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018. 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.07.28 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-20094-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018 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 18.07.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.28 10:36 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 →