AVNEESH GUPTA HUF vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5792/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01033386202503 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh held that the present writ petition is disposed of 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 the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by the co-ordinate bench regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices as per the relevant CBDT circular. The operative direction is to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential actions, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Avneesh Gupta (HUF), challenged a notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices, as per a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022. The respondents, including the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Patiala, did not dispute this contention. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 which vests exclusive power with the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power for such issuances. 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-5792-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 144 CWP-5792-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-03.03.2025 Avneesh Gupta (HUF)

....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer,Ward 4, Patiala & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) & consequential actions 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 2025.03.07 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-5792-2025 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 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 & consequential actions 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 03.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.07 14:30 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 →