Disposed¶22

Gaurav Sethi v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Faridabad and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2025CWP/17442/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenge to Section 148 notice dated 19.05.2025 for AY 2022-2023; jurisdiction of issuing authority versus NFAC exclusive power per CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022; petition disposed of in terms of Punjab & Haryana High Court Co-ordinate Bench rulings in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, 29.07.2024); Union of India counsel did not dispute; pending applications disposed; Income Tax Act, 1961; CWP-17442-2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the Co-ordinate Bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024); all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶22

Gaurav Sethi Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Faridabad… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 19.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023, were validly issued, given that per the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148.

¶20

Court's answer

Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute that the issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the Co-ordinate Bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024).

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-17442-2025, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Lisa Gill & Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.), decided 01.07.2025 — Writ petition by Gaurav Sethi challenging notice dated 19.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all consequential actions for AY 2022-2023, on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which specifically enumerates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. Counsel contended the issue was covered by Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024), which had allowed like petitions while granting the revenue liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; counsel for the Union of India did not dispute this. After hearing counsel and perusing the record, the Court disposed of the petition in terms of those two judgments; all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶1

CWP-17442-2025 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

146

¶4

CWP-17442-2025 Date of decision: 01.07.2025

Gaurav Sethi

...Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1 (3), Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶10

Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents

¶12

¶13

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 19.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961) and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023.

¶14

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.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same.

¶16

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶17

Gaurav Arora 2025.07.04 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-17442-2025 [2]

¶19

whole records of the case.

¶20

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 19.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2022-2023 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶24

(LISA GILL) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE

¶25

01.07.2025

¶26

Gaurav

¶27

Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No Whether reportable:Yes/No

¶28

Gaurav Arora 2025.07.04 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gaurav Sethi v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Faridabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Sethi v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Faridabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Bhagwati Trading Company Vs Punjab Agro Food Grains Corporation Limited and Anr.

Chand Ram Vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Haryana and Others

M/S Pee Pee Marketing Vs State of Punjab & Others

Goyal Automobiles Vs State of Punjab and Others

Nitesh Mangla Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Faridabad and Others

Anirudh Agarwal Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Faridabad and Others