SATISH KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 SONEPAT AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/4961/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01028300202521 February 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The Court's decision was based on the reasoning that an identical issue had been examined by a co-ordinate bench in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. In those cases, the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) were quashed, and the petitions were allowed. The principle established is that post the introduction of faceless assessment under Section 151A read with Section 144B, notices under Section 148 cannot be issued by the JAO. The Court disposed of the present petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, with liberty to the respondent/Revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act and proceed accordingly. No other issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Satish Kumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking to quash a notice dated 28.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertaining to assessment year 2020-21. The petitioner contended that post 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 Revenue, represented by its counsel, was present and did not dispute the factual position presented by the petitioner. The Court had the benefit of prior judgments on identical issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2020-21 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? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice dated 28.03.2024, issued by the JAO under Section 148, is bad in law because, with the advent of faceless assessment, such notices can no longer be issued by the JAO. The petitioner relied on two co-ordinate bench judgments of the High Court: Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (decided on 29.07.2024). Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the Revenue on this issue. However, their presence and lack of dispute on the factual position suggest they did not contest the petitioner's reliance on the cited precedents.

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-4961-2025

Date of decision: 21.02.2025

Satish Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA

Present: Ms. Divya Arora, Advocate, and

Mr. Amit Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

ARUN PALLI, J. (Oral)

A Certiorari is prayed for, to quash the impugned notice dated 28.03.2024 (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 28.03.2024 (P-1), issued under Section 148 of the 1961 Act, as regards the assessment year 2020-21. For, post introduction of the concept of faceless assessment under Section 151A read with Section AMIT KUMAR 2025.02.24 19:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

-2-

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 21.02.2025 Ak Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

AMIT KUMAR 2025.02.24 19:34 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 →