CWP-16168-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Sumit Sood Union of India and others CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Present : Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, for the Income Tax Department. DEEPAK SIBAL Challenge in the prese (Annexure P-1) short ‘1961 Act notice of demand dated of the 1961 Act, 2. The primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the impugned notice has which could have not been done because in terms of the notificatio 29.03.2022 (Annexure P of India, the impugned notice could have been issued onl assessment. 3. In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court: i) CWP of India and others 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.155 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16168 Date of Decision : …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Ranbir Singh Rawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel, for the Income Tax Department. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 1) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for Act’); assessment order dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure P notice of demand dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure P Act, for AY 2018-2019. 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 done because in terms of the notificatio 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-10), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued onl In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court: i) CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024; and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 16168-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.05.2025 …Petitioner …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI , Advocate, Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel and Jr. Standing Counsel, nt petition is to notice dated 31.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for 27.03.2023 (Annexure P-7) and 27.03.2023 (Annexure P-8) issued under Section 156 The primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer which could have not been done because in terms of the notification dated ), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless 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 decided on 19.07.2024; and VANDANA 2025.07.02 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16168-2025 (O&M) ii) CWP Union of India and others 4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in its favour by the law the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s 5. In the light of the above, the of Jatinder Singh 19.07.2024 and 29.07.2024, respectively. 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 28, 2025 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : 2025 (O&M) ii) CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh Union of India and 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 its favour by the law the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s In the light of the above, the present Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s 19.07.2024 and 29.07.2024, respectively. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 5 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Jasjit Singh Vs. decided on 29.07.2024. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in its favour by the law laid down through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co-ordinate Benches of Jasjit Singh’s case (supra). present petition is allowed in terms Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra), decided on All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.07.02 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document