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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21978/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01120493202501 August 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana, in light of the submissions made and the precedents relied upon, held that the impugned notice dated 31.07.2022, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was not in accordance with the law. The Court followed its own previous decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. Consequently, the Court quashed the notice dated 31.07.2022. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, implying they could issue a fresh notice if permissible under the prevailing rules and procedures. The petition was allowed in terms of quashing the notice.

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 and others. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible as per a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. This notification stipulated that such notices could only be issued through faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in support of his argument. The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by the precedent set in those judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is valid, in light of the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment for such notices? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice dated 31.07.2022 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the mandate of the notification dated 29.03.2022, requiring issuance through faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on the High Court's decisions in CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others). Revenue's Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, did not dispute the fact that the petitioner's case was covered in his favour by the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments of the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

114

CWP-21978-2025

Date of Decision: 01.08.2025

SUMIT GARG

.......Petitioner

Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

....Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:- Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel, with

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsel, and

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel,

for respondent-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, Government of India, 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-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024; and PRINCE SAINI 2025.08.05 02:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-21978-2025

-2-

ii. CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents 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 and Jasjit Singh (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

[LAPITA BANERJI] 01.08.2025

JUDGE PRINCE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No PRINCE SAINI 2025.08.05 02:12 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 →