PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ROHTAK vs. TAYAL SONS PRIVATE LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
ITA/224/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01074008202618 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that all the substantial questions of law raised by the revenue had already been answered against the revenue in a recent judgment of the same Court dated September 10, 2026, in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The reasoning for the dismissal is based on the prior adjudication of the same legal issues by the High Court. The specific findings of the ITAT that were upheld by the High Court, and the detailed reasoning behind the Jyoti Sareen judgment, are not elaborated upon in this order, as it relies on the previous decision. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak (the revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had set aside a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 27, 2023, which was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to Tayal Sons Private Limited (the assessee). The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of the 'Faceless Manner' and 'Faceless Assessment' procedures introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, and related schemes, particularly concerning the issuance of Section 148 notices in the context of income escaping assessment.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide several questions of law, primarily concerning the interpretation of the 'Faceless Manner' in the E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022, and its interplay with the 'Faceless Assessment' procedure under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The key questions were: 1. Whether the ITAT misinterpreted the term 'Faceless Manner' in the E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022, in relation to the 'Faceless Assessment' procedure applicable upon filing a return under Section 148, specifically regarding the issuance of Section 148 notices by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). 2. Whether the ITAT erred in considering the automatic allocation of assessees to Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs) under the Faceless Jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities Scheme, 2022, which allegedly conferred jurisdiction on the JAO to issue the notice. 3. Whether the ITAT was justified in setting aside the Section 148 notice issued by the JAO, given the introduction of faceless assessment and automated allocation, and whether the JAO was explicitly prohibited from issuing such notices. 4. Whether the ITAT correctly held that the JAO cannot issue a Section 148 notice when the Kolkata High Court in Triton Overseas Pvt. Ltd. held concurrent jurisdiction between JAOs and units under NaFAC. 5. Whether the ITAT's decision to quash the notice was in alignment with Section 144B, which comes into play after the Section 148 notice process is completed. The revenue argued that the ITAT misinterpreted the legislative intent and the scope of the faceless assessment provisions. The assessee's arguments, as reflected in the revenue's grounds of appeal, were that the ITAT correctly quashed the notice based on the interpretation of the faceless assessment scheme and the jurisdiction of the JAO. The judgment does not explicitly detail the assessee's arguments beyond what is implied in the revenue's grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144B,Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.146 ITA-224-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.09.2026 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak ….Appellant Versus Tayal Sons Private Limited ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel (through VC) for the appellant. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1.

Through this appeal, the revenue raises the following substantial questions of law:- “(a) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has misinterpreted the term 'Faceless Manner' in Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 with 'Faceless Assessment' procedure whose application is advent upon filing of return of income upon notice under Section 148 as provided in sub-section (1)(iii) (b) of Section144B w.r.t issuance of notice of Section 148 by Faceless Assessing Officer(FAO)? (b) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has misinterpreted the term 'Faceless Manner in E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 solely without considering to the extent provided in Section 144B of the Act in relation to the Explanation of Section 144B of the Act? (c) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has wrong interpretated the intention of the legislature w.r.t. the term 'Faceless Manner' in E- Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 vis-a- vis 'Faceless Assessment' procedure whose application is advent upon filing of return of income upon notice under Section 148 as JYOTI SHARMA 2026.09.21 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

ITA-224-2026 (O&M) -2- provided in sub-section (1)(iii)(b) of Section 144B w.r.t. issuance of notice of Section 148 by Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (d) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has taken into the consideration the automatic allocation of Assessee to the Juri ictional Assessing Officers in accordance with and to the extent provided of the schemes as defined in Faceless Juri iction of Income tax Authorities Scheme, 2022, which confers juri iction to the Juri ictional Assessing Officer and hence the Juri ictional Assessing Officer issued notice in the case as per E-Assessment of Income Assessment Scheme, 2022? (e) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in setting aside set aside notice under Section148 dated 27.03.2023 issued/ passed by the Juri ictional Officer (JAO), given that the Finance Act, 2021 introduced provisions for faceless assessment and the automated allocation of cases, and does not explicitly prohibit the JAO from issuing such notices? (f) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT, while quashing the notice issued under Section 148 by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer JAO), failed to appreciate that the same is consistent with the legislative intent. when the powers to issue the notice under Section 148 remained intact with the JAO even after bringing the 'Faceless Assessment Scheme? (g) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in holding that JAO cannot issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, when both the JAO as well as units under NaFAC have concurrent juri iction under the Income Tax Act as has been held by the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in its order in W.P. No. WPO/ 1566/2023 dated 13.09.2023 in the case of Triton Overseas Pvt. Ltd.? (h) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT's decision to quash the notice issued under Section 148 by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is in alignment with the provisions of Section 144B which comes into picture only after the process of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act has been completed? (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in quashing the notice issued under Section 148 by the JAO as per automated management JYOTI SHARMA 2026.09.21 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

ITA-224-2026 (O&M) -3- allocation and risk strategies as per provisions of Section 151A read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act? (j) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in law in holding that the Section 144B, 151A of the Income Act, r/w CBDT Notification No.18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 mandate that the notice under Section 148 shall only by Faceless, when the provisions of 148 of the Act require issue of notices by Assessing Officers?”

2.

It is not disputed that through a recent judgment of this Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, all the afore questions have been answered against the revenue.

3.

In the light of the above consensus, this appeal is dismissed in the light of the law laid down in Jyoti Sareen’s case (supra). (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE September 18, 2026 Jyoti 1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JYOTI SHARMA 2026.09.21 12:07 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →