HUDSON INSURANCE BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22534/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01122030202505 August 20252 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 29.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. The Court found that the respondents-Income Tax Department did not dispute the fact that the petitioner's case was covered in their favor by the law laid down in the two judgments previously rendered by different Co-ordinate Benches of the same Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases. Consequently, in light of the law laid down in those precedents, the Court quashed the impugned notice. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hudson Insurance Brokers Private Limited, challenged a notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The primary contention was that this notice could only have been issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, as per a notification dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by an unauthorized authority and was therefore a 'faceless assessment' and consequently, a 'fruitless assessment'. The respondents, the Income Tax Officer and others, did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is invalid because it was issued by an authority not empowered to do so as per the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who lacked the authority to do so based on the notification dated 29.03.2022. This notification, according to the petitioner, vested the power to issue such notices only with the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. The petitioner relied on two judgments of the High Court: CWP No.15745 of 2024 - Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024, and CWP No.21509 of 2023 - Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. Revenue's Contention: The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's submissions and acknowledged that the case was covered in favor of the petitioner by the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[127]

Hudson In

Income T

Coram :

Present:

DEEPAK

[1] dated 29.0 under Sec challenge by the Ju because in by the M could hav [2] petitioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF P AT CHANDIGA

CWP-225 Date of D

nsurance Brokers Private Limite

versus ax Officer and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate a for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior S Kapoor, Junior Standing Cou Junior Standing Counsel for t Department. *** K SIBAL, J. (ORAL) Challenge made through th 03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued t 34-2025 Decision : 05.08.2025 d

…Petitioner

….Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL SUBHAS MEHLA and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate Standing Counsel, Mr. Vidul unsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, the respondents-Income Tax e instant petition is to the not to the petitioner by the responde Act, 1961. The primary ground he impugned notice has been issu which could not have been do 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-2), issu of Revenue, the impugned not celess assessment. bmission, learned counsel for g two judgments of this Court :- 24 - Jatinder Singh Bhangu nd others, decided on 19.07.202

tice ents d of ued one ued tice the 24. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.05 20:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22534-2025

-2-

(ii) CWP No.21509 of 2023 - Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of

India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. [3]

Learned counsel for the respondents-Income Tax Department does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in his favour by the law laid down through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra). [4]

In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra), the impugned notice dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. [5]

The petition is allowed in the above terms.

(DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE

(SUBHAS MEHLA)

JUDGE

05.08.

2025 ‘R. Sharma'

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable

: Yes/No

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.05 20:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →