VINOD DHAMIJA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PANIPAT AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/4779/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01027515202520 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised by the petitioner is squarely covered by previous decisions of a Co-ordinate Bench of the same Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). In those cases, notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 were quashed, and the petitions were allowed. The reasoning was based on the understanding that post-introduction of faceless assessment, the JAO is not empowered to issue such notices. The principle established is that the procedure for issuing notices under Section 148 must align with the current faceless assessment regime. Consequently, the petition was disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgments, quashing the impugned notice and consequential proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the prescribed procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vinod Dhamija, challenged a notice dated 06.04.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner argued that following the introduction of faceless assessment under Section 151A read with Section 144B of the Act, a notice under Section 148 cannot be issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panipat, and others, did not dispute the factual position presented by the petitioner. The case was heard through video conferencing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2019-20 is invalid if issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after the introduction of faceless assessment provisions under Section 151A read with Section 144B of the Act? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the notice under Section 148, issued by the JAO, is bad in law because the current scheme of faceless assessment restricts the issuance of such notices to specific authorities, not the JAO. The petitioner relied on judgments from a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in CWP No. 15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No. 21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others). Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents regarding this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151A,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-4779-2025

Date of decision: 20.02.2025

Vinod Dhamija

...Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panipat, and others ….Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA

Present: Ms. Divya Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

(Through Video Conferencing)

****

ARUN PALLI, J. (Oral)

A Certiorari is prayed for, to quash the impugned notice dated 06.04.2023 (P-1), issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘1961 Act’), and all consequential proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, at the outset, that the matter in issue is squarely covered by an order and judgment, rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024), as also in CWP No. 21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024).

Served with the advance copy of the petition, Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, learned Senior Standing Counsel, along with Ms. V.Vedika Rao, Advocate, for the respondents, is present through virtual mode. The factual position, as set out above, is not disputed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

As indicated earlier, the petitioner has assailed the notice dated 06.04.2023 (P-1), issued under Section 148 of the 1961 Act, as regards the assessment year 2019-20. For, post introduction of the AMIT KUMAR 2025.02.21 13:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

-2-

concept of faceless assessment under Section 151A read with Section 144B of the 1961 Act, notice under Section 148 of the 1961 Act cannot be issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO).

An identical issue was examined by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra), and upon thorough analysis of the matter, the notice(s) issued by the JAO were quashed and the petition(s) filed by the assessee(s) were allowed. But, with liberty to the respondent/Revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the 1961 Act and proceed accordingly.

In the wake of the above, and as prayed by learned counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of, in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra).

(ARUN PALLI)

JUDGE

(DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA)

JUDGE 20.02.2025 Ak Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

AMIT KUMAR 2025.02.21 13:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity 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 →