VIKRAM WADHWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18449/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01100302202507 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 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was liable to be quashed in terms of the law laid down in the judgments of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). The Court found that the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these precedents. Consequently, the notice was quashed, with liberty granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The Court allowed the petition in the above terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vikram Wadhwa, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the respondents, Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh, and others. The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas the faceless assessment scheme, as per a notification dated 29.03.2022, should have governed its issuance. The petitioner argued that the notice should have been issued in terms of the faceless assessment procedure. The respondents did not dispute the facts or the legal position relied upon by the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of being processed under the faceless assessment scheme, as per the notification dated 29.03.2022? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice was liable to be quashed as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the mandate of the faceless assessment scheme notified on 29.03.2022. The petitioner relied on the judgments in CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India). Revenue's Contentions: The respondents conceded that the case of the petitioner was covered by the two judgments relied upon by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-18449-

IN THE Vikram Wadhw Income Tax O

CORAM : H

H

Present : M fo

M

M M

fo

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 27.03.20 under Section challenge rais issued by the done because i issued by the notice could ha

2.

In petitioner plac i. CWP India -2025 (O&M) Sr. No.144

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1844 Date of De

wa

Versus fficer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh an

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate or the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stand Mr. Vaibhav Gupta and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing C or the Income Tax Department-re *** BAL, J. (Oral)

Challenge made through the ins 025 (Annexure P-1) issued to the 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1 ed by the petitioner is that th Juri ictional Assessing Office in terms of the notification dated Ministry of Finance, Governm ave been issued only by way of f n support of his afore submiss es reliance on the following two P-15745-2024, titled Jatinder S a and others, decided on 19.07.2 B AND HARYANA AT H 49-2025 (O&M) ecision : 07.07.2025

…Petitioner

nd others

…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI ding Counsel and ounsels espondents. stant petition is to the notice e petitioner by the respondents 1961. The primary ground of e impugned notice has been er which could have not been d 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-2), ment of India, the impugned faceless assessment. sion, learned counsel for the o judgments of this Court:- 2024; and VANDANA 2025.07.09 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18449-

ii. CWP other

3.

L that the case o through the af Benches of thi

4.

In Jatinder Sing dated 27.03.20 Officer, is here the petitioner i

5.

T

July 07, 2025 vandana

Whether speak Whether repor -2025 (O&M) P-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Sin rs, decided on 29.07.2024. earned counsel for the responde of the petitioner is covered in his foresaid two judgments rendered is Court in Jatinder Singh Bhan n the light of the above, in ter gh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh ( 025 (Annexure P-1), issued by eby quashed with liberty to the r in accordance with law. he petition is allowed in the abov

(DEEPA

J (LAPIT

J

5

king/reasoned :

Yes/No rtable :

Yes/No gh Vs. Union of India and ents does not dispute the fact s favour by the law laid down d by two different co-ordinate ngu and Jasjit Singh (supra). rms of the law laid down in (supra), the impugned notice y the Juri ictional Assessing respondents to proceed against ve terms. AK SIBAL) JUDGE

TA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.07.09 09:36 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 →