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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21273/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01116401202528 July 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 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 previously decided cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh by coordinate benches of the same High Court. The reasoning was that the notification mandating faceless assessment for notices under Section 148 had not been followed. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed. 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, 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 given the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment for such notices. The respondents, the Income Tax Department, did not dispute that the 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 when a notification mandates faceless assessment for such notices? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice dated 31.07.2022, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This was based on the Ministry of Finance notification dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that such notices could only be issued through faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two High Court judgments: CWP No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India) and CWP No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India). Revenue's contention: The respondents-Income Tax Department did not dispute the petitioner's submissions and conceded that the case was covered by the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ( Sr. No. 131 ) CWP No.21273 of 2025 Date of decision: 28.07.2025 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, 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 Jurisdictional 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. SUNIL YADAV 2025.07.30 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

CWP No.21273 of 2025

[2]

(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. (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

28.07.

2025

( LAPITA BANERJI ) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2025.07.30 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →