SANDEEP GOEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11026/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01062374202524 April 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned notice dated March 28, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down by two coordinate benches of the same Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. These judgments established that notices under Section 148 should be issued through the faceless assessment mechanism as per the notification dated March 29, 2022. Consequently, the notice was quashed. The respondent was granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sandeep Goel, challenged a notice dated March 28, 2025, issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(5), Chandigarh, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas a notification dated March 29, 2022, mandated that such notices be issued through faceless assessment. The respondent, the Income Tax Department, did not dispute that the case was covered by previous judgments of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 28, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid, considering the mandate of faceless assessment as per the notification dated March 29, 2022? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the notification dated March 29, 2022). Assessee's contention: The notice is invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the faceless assessment procedure prescribed by the notification dated March 29, 2022. 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: Not recorded. The respondent did not dispute the petitioner's submission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11026-2025 -1- 121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11026-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 24.04.2025 **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN **** Present: Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate, with Mr. Parnika Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel, with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate, for the Income Tax Department-respondent. ***** 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 respondent 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. Nitin 2025.05.05 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11026-2025 -2-

2.

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. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent 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 separate 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 the 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 respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

5.

The petition is allowed in the above terms.

(DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE APRIL 24, 2025

(HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) nitin JUDGE Whether Speaking Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Nitin 2025.05.05 14:17 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 →