SUNNY GARG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12879/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01067683202507 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 31.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the precedent established in two prior judgments of the Court: Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. In these cases, the Court had ruled that notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be issued through the faceless assessment mechanism as per the relevant notification. The reasoning was that the notification mandated a specific procedure for issuing such notices, and deviation from it rendered the notice void. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned notice. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sunny Garg, challenged a notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others (respondents). The primary contention was 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, mandating faceless assessment for such notices. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by the precedent set in those judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is valid, when a notification from the Ministry of Finance mandates issuance through a faceless assessment procedure? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner 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 via faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on the judgments in 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 petitioner's submissions and conceded that the case was covered by 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 & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

131

CWP-12879-2025

Date of Decision: 07.05.2025

SUNNY GARG

.......Petitioner

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:- Mr. Yash Gilhotra, Advocate, for

Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel, and

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel,

for Income Tax Dept.

*****

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1.

Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 31.03.2025 (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 not have 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.

2.

In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court:- PRINCE SAINI 2025.05.08 23:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12879-2025 -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 and Jasjit Singh (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 31.03.2025 (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] 07.05.2025

JUDGE Prince

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No PRINCE SAINI 2025.05.08 23:42 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 →