Dismissed

Avi Gupta v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Panipat and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CWP/7254/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-bench order disposed of a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of a Ward Officer to issue a Section 148 notice for AY 2019-2020. The court followed the ratio of two coordinate judgments allowing revenue to proceed under the Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of in terms of coordinate judgments; all pending applications stand disposed of.

Avi Gupta Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Panipat and Ors. — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-7254-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

141

¶5

CWP-7254-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.03.2025

Avi Gupta

....Petitioner

vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Panipat & ors.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Ms. Divya Arora and Mr. Amit Kaushik, Advocates, for the petitioner

¶13

Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel (Through VC) with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

¶15

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶16

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 20.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2019-2020.

¶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

¶19

Gaurav Arora 2025.03.24 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7254-2025

disputed the same.

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

¶24

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 20.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2019-2020 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.

¶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