Disposed

Aditya Srivastav v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Faridabad and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CWP/17564/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2021-2022 issued by the Income Tax Officer. The Court followed the outcome of co-ordinate bench decisions on the identical issue regarding jurisdiction of the issuing authority. Pending applications were also disposed of.

What the court decided

AI extract

Aditya Srivastav Vs Income Tax Officer… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-17564-2025 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

168

¶4

CWP-17564-2025 Date of decision: 01.07.2025

Aditya Srivastav

...Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), 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 29.03.2025 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

¶17

disputed the same.

¶18

Gaurav Arora 2025.07.04 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP-17564-2025 [2]

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 29.03.2025 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.

¶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

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.

¶24