Disposed

Sachin Kumar Chauhan v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CWP/17445/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Section 148 notice issued by an Income Tax Officer for AY 2021-2022. Relying on co-ordinate bench precedents, the court held that the petitioner had no cause of action and the writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and pending applications are disposed of following co-ordinate bench precedents allowing the Revenue to proceed accordingly.

Sachin Kumar Chauhan Vs Income Tax… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-17445-2025 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

149

¶4

CWP-17445-2025 Date of decision: 01.07.2025

Sachin Kumar Chauhan

...Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (3), Faridabad and others ...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

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

CWP-17445-2025 [2]

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶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