Dismissed

Manoj Kumar Dhillon v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Faridabad and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CWP/12564/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging lack of jurisdiction due to a CBDT notification reserving such power exclusively for the NFAC. The Court, following coordinate bench precedents, disposed of the petition allowing the revenue to proceed as advised.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of allowing the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly.

Manoj Kumar Dhillon Vs Income… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-12564-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

164 CWP-12564-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-05.05.2025

Manoj Kumar Dhillon

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Faridabad & ors.

¶9

...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 for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶15

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, 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. 215092023 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 whole records of the case.

¶19

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY

¶20

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.07 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-12564-2025

¶22

¶23

2021-2022, 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) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 05.05.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶28

Gaurav Arora 2025.05.07 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manoj Kumar Dhillon v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Faridabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Dhillon v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) 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