MAHESH GUPTA HUF vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/592/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01003612202514 January 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 raised in the present writ petition was covered by its previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of these earlier decisions. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying the notice was quashed but allowing the revenue to re-issue it following the correct procedure. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahesh Gupta HUF, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The petitioner contended 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 revenue, represented by learned counsel, did not dispute this contention. The High Court had previously dealt with similar issues in connected cases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148 of the Act and the CBDT circular). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by an authority without jurisdiction, as the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 specifically grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on previous 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. 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-592-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 119 CWP-592-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-14.01.2025 Mahesh Gupta HUF ....Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Varun Bansal and Mr. Nitin Bhasin, Advocates for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel and Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) for AY 2021-2022. 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 2025.01.16 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-592-2025 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 26.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2021-22, issued by respondent No. 3 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 14.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.16 11:20 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 →