VINOD AGGARWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14534/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01078569202520 May 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the case of the petitioner was covered by the law laid down in the two judgments previously rendered by the Court, namely Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was quashed. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued under Section 148 must adhere to the faceless assessment procedure as mandated by relevant notifications, and deviations render such notices invalid. The operative direction was to quash the notice and permit fresh proceedings as per law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vinod Aggarwal, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The challenge was based on the assertion that the notice was issued in contravention of a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which mandated faceless assessment. The petitioner argued that the notice could only have been issued through a faceless assessment process. The respondents, the Income Tax Department, did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by previous judgments of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was not issued in accordance with the faceless assessment procedure mandated by the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the faceless assessment procedure. The petitioner relied on two judgments of the High Court: Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others (CWP-21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). Revenue's contention: The respondents did not dispute the facts and conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the aforesaid two judgments rendered by the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-14534 o

IN THE Vinod Aggarw Income Tax O

CORAM : H

H

Present : M

fo

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 of 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.130

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1453 Date of De

wal

… Versus Officer, Ward 2 (1), Chandigarh a

… HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, or the petitioner. Mr.Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing C Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing C or the Income Tax Department-re *** BAL, J. (Oral)

Challenge made through the ins 025 (Annexure P-3) issued to the 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1 ed by the petitioner is that th Jurisdictional 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 34-2025 (O&M) ecision : 20.05.2025

…Petitioner

and others

…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI Counsel and Counsel, 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-8), ment of India, the impugned faceless assessment. sion, learned counsel for the o judgments of this Court:- 2024; and VANDANA 2025.05.22 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-14534 o

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

May 20, 2025 vandana

Whether speak Whether repor of 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-3), 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 Jurisdictional Assessing respondents to proceed against ve terms. AK SIBAL) JUDGE

TA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.05.22 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 →