Dismissed

Naina Kaur v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CWP/18821/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2021-2022. The court followed two coordinate bench decisions to dismiss the petition, noting the matter for appropriate procedure.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the notice under Section 148 is disposed of, granting liberty to revenue to proceed accordingly.

Naina Kaur Vs Union of India and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-18821-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

160

¶5

CWP-18821-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-10.07.2025

Naina Kaur

....Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India and ors.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mrs. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. Aditya Mehtani, Advocate for the respondents.

¶14

¶15

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶16

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2021-2022.

¶17

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 .

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also not

¶19

disputed the same.

¶20

Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-18821-2025

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 26.06.2025 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.

¶25

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s

¶26

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.

¶27