Dismissed

Shankuntla v. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1) Gurgaon and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CWP/617/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Co-ordinate Bench judgment was applied to dispose of a writ petition challenging an Income Tax Officer's jurisdiction to issue a Section 148 notice for AY 2020-21. The court relied on precedent to dismiss the challenge regarding the exclusivity of NFAC's jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed following the judgment of a co-ordinate bench; party granted liberty to proceed.

Shankuntla Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1) Gurgaon and… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-617-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

123 CWP-617-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-14.01.2025

Shakuntla

....Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward (4), Gurgaon & ors. ...Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶14

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) for AY 2020-2021.

¶15

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 .

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same.

¶17

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶18

Gaurav Arora 2025.01.16 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP-617-2025

¶20

¶21

whole records of the case.

¶22

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 28.03.2024 under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2020-21, issued by respondent No. 1 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.

¶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