ANJU BALA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

CWP/14619/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Anju Bala, the petitioner, challenging several notices and orders issued under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2020-2021. The notices included a notice under Section 148 for reassessment, an order under Section 147, a demand notice under Section 156, and a notice under Section 271 AAC (1) concerning penalties. The petitioner argued that the issues were previously covered by judgments in similar cases, specifically citing the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, where the writ petitions were allowed. The respondent, Union of India, did not dispute the applicability of these precedents. The court, acknowledging the pending appeal before the Appellate Authority, decided not to interfere further and directed the Appellate Authority to resolve the matter in line with the cited judgments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 756326 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: URVASHI DHUGGA
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL GOYAL; RANA GURTEJ SINGH
• Keywords: Appeal; CBDT; Income Tax; NFAC; Notice
• Section: 147; 148; 156; 271 AAC(1)

Judgement Text

"CWP-14619-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 188 CWP-14619-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-21.05.2025 Anju Bala ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (3), Abohar & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal and Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mrs. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961 and all 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority. Gaurav Arora 2025.05.26 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14619-2025 2 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 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 19.03.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021, 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. Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above. 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (LISA GILL) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 21.05.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.05.26 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "