TARUN GOYAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13074/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01071573202508 May 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the primary ground of challenge by the petitioner was that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible in view of the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment. The respondents did not dispute this fact and conceded that the case was covered by two previous judgments of the same Court: Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024, and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. Therefore, following the precedent set by these judgments, the petition was allowed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tarun Goyal, has challenged a notice dated 12.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 26.02.2025 under Section 147 of the Act, and a demand notice dated 26.02.2025 for Assessment Year 2017-2018. The primary contention is that the impugned notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is impermissible according to a notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessments for such notices. The respondents, the Income Tax Department, did not dispute this fact.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 12.02.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the mandate of faceless assessment as per the notification dated 29.03.2022? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is not permissible in light of the notification dated 29.03.2022, requiring such notices to be issued through faceless assessment. Reliance was placed on this Court's judgments 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, represented by Senior Standing Counsel, did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner and conceded that the case was covered by the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 171 CWP-13074-2025

Date of decision: 08.05.2025 TARUN GOYAL ...Petitioner VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents - Income Tax Department. **** DEEPAK SIBAL

, J.(ORAL)

1.

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 12.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “1961 Act”); order dated 26.02.2025 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 147 of the 1961 Act and notice of demand dated 26.02.2025 for AY 2017-2018. 2. 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-3), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. NISHA 2025.05.13 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13074-2025 -2-

3.

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. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in its 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).

5.

In the light of the above, the present petition is allowed in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra), decided on 19.07.2024 and 29.07.2024, respectively. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 08.05.2025

Nisha Yadav

Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NISHA 2025.05.13 09:49 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 →