MADHU GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6752/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038463202511 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cited cases, the co-ordinate bench had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention, which was not disputed by the revenue, that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue notices under Section 148. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in line with the precedent, implying the original notice was vitiated but the revenue could re-initiate proceedings correctly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Madhu Gupta, challenged a notice dated March 20, 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 a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, vests the exclusive power to issue such notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Officer and others, did not dispute this contention. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh considered the present petition in light of previous judgments by a co-ordinate bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 20, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, is without jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power with the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which specifies that the NFAC has exclusive power. The petitioner relied on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The revenue 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-6752-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 151 CWP-6752-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-11.03.2025 Madhu Gupta ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Faridabad and ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential 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. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.03.18 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6752-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential 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 11.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.18 17:48 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 →