Disposed

Kamlesh Lakhani v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4) Faridabad and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CWP/15883/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2017-18. Granting liberty to the revenue to follow valid procedure, the court directed the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal instead of adjudicating the writ petition directly.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with direction to Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal.

Kamlesh Lakhani Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4)… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-15883-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

214 CWP-15883-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-28.05.2025

¶5

Kamlesh Lakhani ....Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (4), Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶13

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’) and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018.

¶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. 215092023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority.

¶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 2025.06.06 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-15883-2025

¶19

¶20

whole records of the case.

¶21

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018, 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above.

¶24