Allowed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CWP/11169/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed this writ petition challenging a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that the challenge, regarding the Revenue's jurisdiction contrary to CBDT notifications, must be disposed of in terms of identical precedents by allowing liberty to the Revenue to proceed as per the Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of precedents; liberty granted to revenue to follow procedure under the Act.

Anirudh Agarwal Vs Income Tax Officer Ward… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-11169-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

192

¶5

CWP-11169-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-24.04.2025

Anirudh Agarwal

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶15

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2021-2022.

¶16

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 .

¶17

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

¶18

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶19

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

¶20

CWP-11169-2025

¶21

¶22

whole records of the case.

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, for AY 2021-2022 issued by respondent No. 1, on the ground that he 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) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

¶29

24.04.2025

¶30

Gaurav Arora

¶31

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

¶32

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anirudh Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Faridabad 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