Tarun Kumar V. Union of India & ors.

CWP/8915/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a series of notices and orders issued to the petitioner, Tarun Kumar, under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the assessment year 2017-2018. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the authority that issued these notices and orders, citing a CBDT circular that designated the NFAC as the exclusive body authorized to issue such notices. The court referenced similar cases, Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, where it had previously ruled in favor of the petitioners under similar circumstances. The court's decision to dispose of the writ petition was based on these precedents, granting the revenue the liberty to follow the correct procedural guidelines as stipulated in the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803157 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2025
• 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: GAURI RAMPAL; V VEDIKA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYAM ANEJA; RESHABH BAJAJ
• Keywords: Assessment Order; CBDT Circular; Jurisdiction; NFAC exclusive power; Notice; Penalty notice
• Section: 147; 148; 148(A)(b); 148 A (d)

Judgement Text

"CWP-8915-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 171 CWP-8915-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-28.03.2025 Tarun Kumar ....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Satyam Aneja, Mr. Reshabh Bajaj, Advocates for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel (Through VC) with Mr. V.Vedika Rao, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 29.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); notice dated 11.01.2024 issued under Section 148 A(b) of the Act, 1961; order dated 29.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 24.02.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; consequential demand notice dated 24.02.2025 and the consequential penalty notices dated 24.02.2025 and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018. 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 2025.04.03 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8915-2025 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 29.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 11.01.2024 issued under Section 148 A(b) of the Act, 1961; order dated 29.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 24.02.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; consequential demand notice dated 24.02.2025 and the consequential penalty notices dated 24.02.2025 and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018 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 28.03.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.04.03 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "