Disposed

Madan Singh v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Sept 2026CWP/11157/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenges notices u/s 148 and 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2018-19, alleging jurisdiction deficit based on CBDT circulars. The Court disposed of the petition by relying on coordinate bench precedents allowing the revenue to proceed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of in terms of coordinate bench judgments, granting liberty to the revenue to act as per the Act.

Madan Singh Vs Union of India and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-11157-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

186

¶5

CWP-11157-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-24.04.2025

Madan Singh

....Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India & ors.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Mr. Rsishabh Singla, Advocates, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel for Ms, Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

¶14

¶15

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶16

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 17.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 17.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019.

¶17

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 .

¶18

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.01 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP-11157-2025

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case.

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 17.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 17.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, for AY 20182019 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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(LISA GILL)	(SU	DEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE		JUDGE
24.04.2025
Gaurav Arora
	Whether speaking/reasoned	_:_Yes/No
	Whether reportable	_:_Yes/No

¶28

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.01 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Madan Singh v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Singh v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases