Disposed

Sanjay Kumar Garg v. Income Tax Officer and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CWP/5245/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a writ petition challenging jurisdictional validity of Section 148 and 148A(d) notices issued by Income Tax Officer for AY 2018-2019. Court disposed of the matter following coordinate bench judgments allowing此类 notices subject to revenue proceeding as advised by tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Able liberty to revenue to follow procedure as laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly if so advised.

Sanjay Kumar Garg Vs Income Tax Officer and Another — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-5245-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

131

¶5

CWP-5245-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-25.02.2025

Sanjay Kumar Garg

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat & anr. ...Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Nitin Kanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶12

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel, for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶15

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; show cause notices dated 08.08.2024 and 19.08.2024 and conseuqential actions, for AY 2018-2019.

¶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 disputed the same.

¶18

Gaurav Arora 2025.02.28 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP-5245-2025

¶20

¶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 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961; show cause notices dated 08.08.2024 and 19.08.2024 and conseuqential actions, for AY 2018-2019, 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