Allowed¶16

Vaibhav Mittal v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2025CWP/17914/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Income tax; Section 148 Income Tax Act, 1961 notice; faceless assessment; Jurisdictional Assessing Officer; Ministry of Finance notification dated 29.03.2022; notice dated 20.06.2025 quashed; writ petition allowed; reliance on Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP-15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP-21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024); Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; CWP-17914-2025; decision date 03.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned notice dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. ¶16

Vaibhav Mittal Vs Union of India and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could validly have been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, when in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, such notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment.

¶11

Court's answer

In terms of the law laid down in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra), the impugned notice dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is quashed, with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-17914-2025 (Vaibhav Mittal v. Union of India and others), High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 03.07.2025 (oral judgment of Deepak Sibal, J.; Bench included Lapita Banerji, J.). The petition challenged the notice dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued to the petitioner by the respondents under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Primary ground of challenge: 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India and others, decided 19.07.2024) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh v. Union of India and others, decided 29.07.2024); learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case is covered by those two coordinate-Bench judgments. In terms of the law laid down in those cases, the Court quashed the impugned notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, and allowed the petition in the above terms.

¶1

IN THE HIG H COURT OF PUNJAB & HARY A NA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Sr. No.127 CWP-17914-2025 Date of decision : 03.07.2025

¶3

Vaibhav Mittal .…. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Union of India and others

¶6

..... Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SI B AL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BA N ERJI

¶8

Present : Mr. M ukul Singla, Advocate, for the pet i tioner. Mr.Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel f o r the Income Tax Department.

¶9

¶10

DEEPAK SIBAL, J . (Oral)

¶11

Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 20.06.2025 (Anne x ure P-1) issued to the petitioner b y the respondents under Section 148 of the Incom e Tax Act, 1961. The primary gr o und of challenge raised by the petitioner is that t h e impugned notice has been issue d by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer which cou l d have not been done because i n terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Anne x ure P-2) issued by the Ministry o f Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by w ay of faceless assessment. 2. In su p port of his afore submission, l e arned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on t h e following two judgments of thi s Court:(i) C W P-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Si n gh Bhangu vs. Union of In d ia and others , decided on 19.07.2 0 24; and (ii) C W P-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Sing h vs. Union of India and o thers , decided on 29.07.2024. 3. Lear n ed counsel for the respondents d oes not dispute the fact that the case of the petiti o ner is covered in his favour by the law laid down through the aforesaid two judg m ents rendered by two different co-ordinate Benches of this Court

¶12

SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.07.07 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

¶13

CWP-17914-2025

¶14

[ 2 ]

¶15

in the cases of Jati n der Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Sing h (supra).

¶16

In th e light of the above, in terms of t h e law laid down in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra), the i m pugned notice dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), is s ued by the Jurisdictional Assessin g Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respo n dents to proceed against the petiti o ner in accordance with law. 5. The p etition is allowed in the above ter m s.

¶17

[DEEPAK SIBAL] JUDGE

¶18

03.07.2025 [LAPITA BANERJI] shamsher JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / N o Whether reportable : Yes / N o

¶19

SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.07.07 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

Vaibhav Mittal v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Mittal v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Singh Sandhu Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Alias Ajay Vs State of Haryana

Jitender Kumar and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sonu Vs State of Haryana and Others

Omparkash Vs State of Haryana and Others

Friends Alloys Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors.