SUMIT GARG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22101/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01120443202504 August 20252 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 31.07.2022, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in the judgments of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, which established that notices under Section 148 should be issued through the faceless assessment procedure as per the notification dated 29.03.2022. The Court quashed the impugned notice. The reasoning was that the respondents did not dispute the applicability of the precedent set by the earlier judgments. The operative direction was to quash the notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sumit Garg, challenged a notice dated 31.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Chandigarh. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible according to a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, mandating faceless assessment for such notices. The respondents, the Income Tax Department, did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by previous judgments of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is valid, in light of the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment? Assessee's contention: The impugned notice dated 31.07.2022, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is invalid because the notification dated 29.03.2022 requires such notices to be issued through a faceless assessment procedure. The assessee relied on the judgments in CWP No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) and CWP No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India), both decided by this Court. Revenue's contention: The respondents-Income Tax Department did not dispute the assessee's submission and conceded that the case was covered in favour 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

2025:PHHC:100546-DB [125] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-22101-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 04.08.2025

Sumit Garg

…Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1),

….Respondents Chandigarh and others

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate

for the petitioner. (Through V.C.)

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel,

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel and

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel

for the respondents-Income Tax Department.

*** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (ORAL)

[1]

Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 31.07.2022 (Annexure P-1) issued to the petitioner by the respondents under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the impugned notice has been issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer which could not have been done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-2), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. [2]

In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court :- (i) CWP No.15745 of 2024 - Jatinder Singh Bhangu

Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. (ii) CWP No.21509 of 2023 - Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of

India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.05 20:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22101-2025 (O&M)

-2-

[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 31.07.2022 (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 04.08.2025 ‘R. Sharma'

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable

: Yes/No

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.05 20:28 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 →