DEEPANSHU BANSAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANTOHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5737/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01030781202501 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these precedents. The court did not explicitly decide on the jurisdictional issue independently but relied on the prior decisions of its Co-ordinate Bench. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying a similar outcome for the petitioner, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings if they choose to follow the correct procedure. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Deepanshu Bansal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging a notice dated 24.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 24.04.2023 under Section 148A(d), a show cause notice dated 30.03.2023 under Section 148A(b), and a corrigendum dated 20.04.2023 under Section 148A(b), all pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer and Union of India, did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 24.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions for AY 2019-2020 are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-5737-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 CWP-5737-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-01.03.2025 Deepanshu Bansal ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat & anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nitin Kanwar and Ms. Nisha Rana, Advocates, for the petitioner Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel (Through VC) with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 24.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 24.04.2023 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; show cause notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 A(b) of the Act, 1961 and corrigendum to show cause notice dated 20.04.2023 under Section 148A(b) of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential 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 Union of India has also not disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-5737-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 24.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 24.04.2023 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; show cause notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 A(b) of the Act, 1961 and corrigendum to show cause notice dated 20.04.2023 under Section 148A(b) of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential 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. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 01.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.05 17:21 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 →