SUSHIL BHATIA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

CWP/13663/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a challenge to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The petitioner argued that the notice was improperly issued as it should have been done through a faceless assessment process, following a notification from the Ministry of Finance dated 29.03.2022. The court referenced two previous judgments, Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, which supported the petitioner's stance that such notices must be issued through faceless assessment procedures. Consequently, the court quashed the notice and allowed the respondents to reissue it correctly under the prescribed faceless assessment framework.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 759208 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India, CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VARUN ISSAR; PRIDHI SANDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: KARTIK BANSAL
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Jurisdictional Assessing Officer; Notice Challenge
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"CWP-13663-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Sushil Bhatia The Income Tax CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department DEEPAK SIBAL Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 30.03.2025 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 done because in terms of the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. 2. In support of his afore submission, petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court: i. CWP India and others, 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.165 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13663 Date of Decision : … Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (4), Faridabad and …Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department-respondents. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice .03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued to the petitioner by the respondents 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 done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned ould have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. In support of his afore submission, petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court: CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu India and others, decided on 19.07.2024; and Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 663-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.05.2025 …Petitioner Officer, Ward 1 (4), Faridabad and others …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Issar, Sr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel, respondents. Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice ) issued to the petitioner by the respondents 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 dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-2), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned ould have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court:- Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of decided on 19.07.2024; and VANDANA 2025.05.15 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13663-2025 ii. CWP others 3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co Benches of this Court in 4. In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh dated 30.03.2025 Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. The petiti May 14, 2025 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh others, decided on 29.07.2024. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in his through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co Benches of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra) .03.2025 (Annexure P-1), issued by the Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition is allowed in the above terms. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 5 ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Page 2 of 2 Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact is covered in his favour by the law laid down through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co-ordinate Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in (supra), the impugned notice ), issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against on is allowed in the above terms. DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.05.15 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "