RUCHIR AGGARWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5850/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01033422202503 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 allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by its own previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, similar writ petitions challenging notices under Section 148 were allowed, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Therefore, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these prior decisions. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent, implying the quashing of the impugned notice but allowing the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings if legally permissible. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ruchir Aggarwal, challenged a notice dated 19.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Karnal, lacked jurisdiction. This was based on a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, including the Income Tax Officer and others, were represented by senior standing counsel. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard arguments from both sides.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 19.04.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority (Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Karnal)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the notice was issued without jurisdiction, relying on the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148. The petitioner cited 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) as covering the present issue. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the applicability of the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-5850-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 155 CWP-5850-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-03.03.2025 Ruchir Aggarwal ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Karnal & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate 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 19.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) 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 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-5850-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 19.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2019-2020 issued by respondent No. 1, on the ground that he 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 2025.03.05 17:25 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 →