PRADEEP GARG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11424/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01060471202528 April 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 case of the petitioner was covered by the law laid down in the two previous judgments of the same court, namely *Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India* and *Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India*. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 27.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pradeep Garg, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 2(1) REAC, Chandigarh. The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid because it was issued in contravention of a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which mandated faceless assessments. The petitioner relied on two prior judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in support of this argument. The respondents, the Income Tax Department, did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner and conceded that the case was covered by the aforementioned judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in contravention of the notification dated 29.03.2022, which mandated faceless assessment, thereby rendering the notice invalid? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid as it was not issued in accordance with the faceless assessment scheme mandated by the notification dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner relied on the judgments in *Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India* and *Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India*. Revenue's Contention: The respondents did not dispute the facts and conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments 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-11424-2

IN THE Pradeep Garg 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 ii. CWP other 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.123

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1142 Date of De

Versus fficer, Ward 2 (1) REAC, Chand

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advoca or the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stand Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate, or the Income Tax Department-re *** BAL, J. (Oral)

Challenge made through the ins 025 (Annexure P-1) 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 P-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Sin rs, decided on 29.07.2024. B AND HARYANA AT H 24-2025 (O&M) ecision : 28.04.2025

…Petitioner

digarh and others …Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI ate, ding Counsel, with 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-2), ment of India, the impugned faceless assessment. sion, learned counsel for the o judgments of this Court:- 2024; and 2025.05.05 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11424-2

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

April 28, 202 vandana

Whether speak Whether repor 2025 (O&M) 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-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

25

king/reasoned :

Yes/No rtable :

Yes/No 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 2025.05.05 12:08 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 →