ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13032/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01072223202508 May 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 28.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the Court, Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. These judgments established that notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be issued through the faceless assessment process as per the notification dated 29.03.2022. The Court found that the revenue did not dispute this position. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed, with liberty granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, challenged a notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Faridabad. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible. According to a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, such notices could only be issued through a faceless assessment process. The assessment year is not explicitly stated but implied to be current or recent given the notice date. The procedural history involves the issuance of the notice and the subsequent challenge through a writ petition before the High Court.

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, given the mandate for faceless assessment under the notification dated 29.03.2022? The assessee argued that the impugned notice, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid because the notification dated 29.03.2022 stipulated that such notices must be issued through a faceless assessment process. The assessee relied on two judgments of the High Court: CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others). The revenue, represented by Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, did not dispute the fact that the petitioner's case was covered by the law laid down in 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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 168 CWP-13032-2025

Date of decision: 08.05.2025 ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL ...Petitioner VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) FARIDABAD 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. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel and Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents - 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 Jurisdictional 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:- NISHA 2025.05.13 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13032-2025 -2- (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 aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra).

4.

In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra), the impugned notice dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-1), issued by the Jurisdictional 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 (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 →