Dismissed

Baj Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Sept 2026CWP/17694/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of a writ petition challenging an income tax notice and assessment order issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Relying on coordinate bench judgments, the court held the matter is sub-judice and left the revenue to proceed as advised.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; liberty to the revenue to follow procedure and proceed if so advised.

Baj Singh Vs Union of India and Ors. — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-17694-2025 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

204

¶4

CWP-17694-2025 Date of decision: 01.07.2025

Baj Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Lalit Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶15

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961); assessment order dated 04.01.2025 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021.

¶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

¶18

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

¶19

CWP-17694-2025 [2]

¶20

disputed the same.

¶21

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

¶22

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 04.01.2025 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶26

(LISA GILL) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

01.07.2025

¶28

Gaurav

¶29

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

¶30

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

Baj Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baj Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

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