PARVEEN GARG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21498/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01116976202529 July 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It held that the impugned notice dated 31.07.2022, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the precedent set by two previous judgments of the same court in *Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India* and *Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India*. The reasoning was that the notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance stipulated that notices under Section 148 could only be issued through a faceless assessment system, and the notice in question was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, thereby contravening this directive. The court quashed the notice and granted the petitioner liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Parveen Garg, challenged a notice dated 31.07.2022, issued by the Income Tax Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas, according to a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, such notices could only be issued through a faceless assessment system. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court in support of their argument. The respondents, represented by senior and junior standing counsel, did not dispute the facts and conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the aforementioned judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.07.2022, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was not issued through the faceless assessment system as stipulated by the notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the notification dated 29.03.2022, mandating faceless assessment for such notices. They relied on the High Court's decisions in *Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India* (WP-15745-2024) and *Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India* (WP-21509-2023). Revenue's Contention: The respondents conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the law laid down in the two cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH

Sr. No.135 Parveen Garg Income Tax Officer

CORAM : HON

HON

Present : Mr. K

Mr. Y Mr. V for th

DEEPAK SIBAL, J 1.

Chall 31.07.2022 (Annex 148 of the Income petitioner is that th Officer which coul 29.03.2022 (Annex the impugned notic 2.

In sup places reliance on th (i) CW of Ind (ii) CW and o 3.

Learn case of the petitio H COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYA

Versus r, Chandigarh and others

'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIB 'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BAN Kartik Bansal, Advocate, for the pet Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Co Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Co he Income Tax Department. * * * * * J. (Oral) enge made through the instant xure P-1) issued to the petitioner b Tax Act, 1961. The primary gr he impugned notice has been issued ld have not been done because in xure P-2) issued by the Ministry o e could have been issued only by w pport of his afore submission, le he following two judgments of this WP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Sin dia and others, decided on 19.07.20 WP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh others, decided on 29.07.2024. ned counsel for the respondents d ner is covered in her favour by

ANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-21498-2025 Date of decision : 29.07.2025

.…. Petitioner

..... Respondents BAL NERJI titioner. ounsel, with unsel, petition is to the notice dated by the respondents under Section round of challenge raised by the d by the Jurisdictional Assessing n terms of the notification dated of Finance, Government of India, way of faceless assessment. earned counsel for the petitioner s Court:- ngh Bhangu vs. Union 024; and h vs. Union of India does not dispute the fact that the the law laid down through the SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.08.02 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

CWP-21498-2025

aforesaid two judgm in the cases of Jatin 4.

In the Jatinder Singh Bha (Annexure P-1) issu liberty to the respon 5.

The p

29.07.2025 shamsher

[ 2 ] ments rendered by two different c nder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh e light of the above, in terms of th ngu and Jasjit Singh (supra), the im ued by the Jurisdictional Assessing ndents to proceed against the petitio petition is allowed in the above term

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

o-ordinate Benches of this Court h (supra). he law laid down in the cases of mpugned notice dated 31.07.2022 g Officer, is hereby quashed with oner in accordance with law. ms. [DEEPAK SIBAL] JUDGE [LAPITA BANERJI] JUDGE o o SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.08.02 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →