SATISH KUMAR CHUGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(5) CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19796/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109157202517 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 March 28, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. This decision was based on the reasoning that the notice was issued contrary to the mandate of the notification dated March 29, 2022, which required such notices to be issued through a faceless assessment process. The Court followed the precedent set by its own coordinate benches in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned notice, granting liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Satish Kumar Chugh, challenged a notice dated March 28, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer Ward 5(5), Chandigarh. The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas a notification dated March 29, 2022, mandated that such notices be issued via faceless assessment. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Department, did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by previous judgments of the High Court on this issue.

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 when a notification mandates faceless assessment for such notices? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice dated March 28, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This was based on the contention that a notification dated March 29, 2022, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, stipulated that such notices could only be issued through a faceless assessment process. The petitioner relied on two High Court judgments: CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India). Revenue's Contention: The respondents, the Income Tax Department, did not dispute the petitioner's submissions and acknowledged 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.133

CWP-19796-2025 Date of decision : 17.07.2025

Satish Kumar Chugh

.…. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 5(5),

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, with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel, for the Income Tax Department.

* * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1.

Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 28.03.2025 (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 have not 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 (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 SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.07.19 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

CWP-19796-2025

[ 2 ]

aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra).

4.

In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra), the impugned notice dated 28.03.2025 (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

17.07.

2025

[LAPITA BANERJI] shamsher

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.07.19 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →