CWP-6293-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 131 CWP-6293-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-06.03.2025 Deepak Kumar ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Fatehabad & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 18.02.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 18.02.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 18.02.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021. 2. 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 . 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not Gaurav Arora 2025.03.12 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6293-2025 2

disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 18.02.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 18.02.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 18.02.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021, 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 06.03.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

Gaurav Arora 2025.03.12 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-6293-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 131 CWP-6293-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-06.03.2025 Deepak Kumar ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Fatehabad & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V. Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 18.02.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 18.02.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 18.02.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021. 2. 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 . 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not Gaurav Arora 2025.03.12 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6293-2025 2

disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; order dated 18.02.2025 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 18.02.2025 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961; notice dated 18.02.2025 issued under Section 271 AAC (1) of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021, 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 06.03.2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

Gaurav Arora 2025.03.12 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document