Dismissed

Rohit Bansal v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CWP/536/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued for AY 2017-18. The court relied on prior judgments to dismiss the challenge regarding the NFAC's jurisdiction. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the impugned notice was upheld by reference to coordinate bench decisions.

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

¶1

CWP-536-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

161

¶5

CWP-536-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-13.01.2025

Rohit Bansal

....Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India and others

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India.

¶14

¶15

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶16

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) for AY 2017-2018.

¶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

Gaurav Arora 2025.01.22 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-536-2025

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2017-2018, issued by respondent No. 3 on the ground that he 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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

13.01.2025 Gaurav Arora

¶29

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

¶30

Gaurav Arora 2025.01.22 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rohit Bansal v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Bansal v. Union of India and Others

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