Dismissed

Yogesh Goyal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CWP/2771/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A coordinate bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of a writ petition challenging jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by following precedents allowed by co-ordinate benches in a similar context.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the revenue authority to follow procedure as laid down under the Income Tax Act, 1961, if so advised.

Yogesh Goyal Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-2771-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

130

¶5

CWP-2771-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-31.01.2025

Yogesh Goyal

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer Ward 2 (3), Faridabad & ors.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶12

Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner

¶13

Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent-Union of India.

¶14

¶15

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶16

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”), for AY 2016-2017.

¶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 Union of India has also not disputed the same.

¶19

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶20

Gaurav Arora 2025.02.05 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-2771-2025

¶22

¶23

whole records of the case.

¶24

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”), for AY 2016-2017, 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 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.

¶26

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

¶27