OMINDER SINGH OBEROI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AMBALA

CWP-11014-2026 (O&M) 177 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11014-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.08.2026 Ominder Singh Oberoi ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ambala ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Ms. Parnika Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Jr. Standing Counsel, Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(Oral) CM-7807-CWP-2026 Allowed as prayed for. Main case 1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the records, relevant facts which emerged are that notice dated 31.03.2025 was issued under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2020-21 on the ground that petitioner had not accounted for capital gains arising from the sale of land in Kasauli, District Solan (Himachal Pradesh). On 26.04.2025, the petitioner filed objections through which it was claimed that sale of land by the petitioner of his land in Kasauli, District Solan (Himachal Pradesh) was exempted under Section 10(37) -1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.03 19:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11014-2026 (O&M) of the Act. Thereafter several notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued to petitioner which led into passing of assessment order dated 23.03.2026 requiring the petitioner to deposit tax with regard to capital gains arising from sale of land by the petitioner in Kasauli, District Solan (Himachal Pradesh). 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned assessment order is liable to be set aside only on the ground of violation of principle of nature justice because the objections filed by the petitioner to the initial notice under Section 148 of the Act on 26.04.2025 were never considered before either issuance of notices under Section 142(1) of the Act or passing of the impugned assessment order dated 23.03.2026. 3. In response to the afore submissions, learned counsel for the respondent submits that though an order dated 21.05.2025 was passed by respondent, but the same could not be communicated to the petitioner on account of technical glitch and, therefore, he has expressed his assertion that the impugned assessment order may be set aside with liberty to the respondent to pass a fresh assessment order, but only after considering the objections dated 26.04.2025 raised by the petitioner to the notice received by the petitioner on 31.03.2025 under Section 148 of the Act. 4. The afore submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent is acceptable to learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 5. In the light of above consensus arrived at between learned counsel for the parties, the assessment order dated 23.03.2026 is set -2- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.03 19:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11014-2026 (O&M) aside with liberty to the respondent to pass a fresh assessment order, but only after considering the objections taken by the petitioner in its response dated 26.04.2025 to the notice received by the petitioner on 31.03.2025. 6. The petition is allowed in the above terms. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 24.08.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

-3- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.03 19:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document