AMIT GUPTA vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5241/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01030153202525 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,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 vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023). In those cases, similar writ petitions were allowed, 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 established precedent of a co-ordinate bench addressing the same issue concerning the jurisdictional powers for issuing Section 148 notices in light of the relevant CBDT circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, implying that the notices were quashed but the revenue could initiate fresh proceedings if compliant with the law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amit Gupta (through legal heir Nidhi Gupta), challenged notices issued under Section 148, Section 143(2) read with Section 147, and Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices. The revenue, represented by Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana & anr., did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 21.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential notices dated 30.07.2024 and 08.08.2024 issued under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 and under Section 142(1) of Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, are without jurisdiction, considering the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notices because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 specifically enumerates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention and implicitly accepted the applicability of the cited precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 147,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-5241-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 131 CWP-5241-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-25.02.2025 Amit Gupta through its legal heir Nidhi Gupta ....Petitioner Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana & anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel, for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 21.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential notices dated 30.07.2024 and 08.08.2024 issued under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 and under Section 142 (1) of Act, 1961, 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 2025.02.28 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-5241-2025 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 21.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential notices dated 30.07.2024 and 08.08.2024 issued under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 and under Section 142 (1) of Act, 1961, 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. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 25.02.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.02.28 17:28 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 →