RAJAT JETLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18438/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01100614202507 July 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It was 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. This decision was based on the law laid down in the two previous judgments cited by the petitioner, namely Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. 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 to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajat Jetly, filed a writ petition challenging 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 primary contention was that the impugned notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was not permissible in terms of a notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The petitioner argued that the notice should have been issued only by way of a faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in support of their submission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is invalid in light of the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which mandates faceless assessment. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment. They relied on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others (CWP-21509-2023). Revenue's Contention: The respondents did not dispute the facts and conceded that the case of the petitioner was covered by the aforesaid two judgments rendered by the co-ordinate Benches of the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-18438-

IN THE Rajat Jetly Income Tax O

CORAM : H

H

Present : M fo

M

M M

fo

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 05.04.20 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.141

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1843 Date of De

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 024 (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 38-2025 (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-3), 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-18438-

ii. CWP other

3.

L that the case o through the af Benches of thi

4.

In Jatinder Sing dated 05.04.20 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 ( 024 (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 →