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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/20096/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110314202518 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 its previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those prior cases, similar writ petitions were allowed on the same issue. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of the aforementioned precedents. Any pending applications were also disposed of. The core reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction based on the CBDT circular and the established precedent of the Court.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Deepak Khandelwal HUF, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, represented by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax and others, did not dispute this contention. The High Court had previously dealt with similar issues in connected matters.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2018-2019, is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifies that the NFAC has exclusive power. The petitioner 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 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-20096-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126 CWP-20096-2025 (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 2018-2019. 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-20096-2025 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 2018-2019 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 →