PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANCHKULA vs. SURENDER SINGH DESWAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/210/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01067844202618 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 have been answered against the revenue in a recent judgment of the same court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, based on the consensus established in the Jyoti Sareen case, the present appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. The reasoning for the dismissal is directly tied to the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen judgment, which, according to the High Court, resolves all the issues presented in this appeal in favor of the assessee. No specific findings on individual issues are provided in this judgment, as it relies entirely on the prior ruling. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

This appeal by the revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula) challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had quashed a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the assessee, Surender Singh Deswal. The revenue's appeal raises several substantial questions of law concerning the ITAT's decision to quash the notice. The core of the dispute revolves around the jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to issue such notices, particularly in light of the faceless assessment regime and pending Supreme Court matters. The High Court notes that similar questions have been addressed in a recent judgment.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in quashing the notice under Section 148 by relying on a High Court judgment without adjudicating the specific question of law raised by the assessee regarding jurisdiction, and if the question adjudicated by the High Court was different from the one before the ITAT? 2. Whether the ITAT failed to exercise jurisdiction lawfully by adjudicating the issue as if the legal position had attained finality, despite the pendency of Special Petitions before the Supreme Court, rendering the impugned order unsustainable? 3. Whether the ITAT erred in law in concluding that the issuance of a Section 148 notice by the JAO is invalid, despite no express statutory provision divesting the JAO of such jurisdiction, and disregarding the Delhi High Court's ruling that Section 144B governs procedure, not assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148? 4. Whether the ITAT erred in law by not applying the principle of concurrent jurisdiction and overlooking the Delhi High Court's pronouncement that the faceless regime is supplementary, not exclusionary, of the JAO's powers under Section 148? 5. Whether the ITAT's decision was perverse for failing to consider the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Talati and Talati LLP, which held that a specific notification does not apply to cases where the JAO issues a Section 148 notice based on search and seizure information? 6. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding the Section 148 notice issued by the JAO invalid, ignoring that the JAO is competent to issue such notice after obtaining prior approval? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee. The revenue argued that the ITAT erred in quashing the notice, citing various High Court judgments and principles of statutory interpretation regarding jurisdiction and the faceless assessment regime. The revenue also pointed to pending Supreme Court matters.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 151A,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.145 ITA-210-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.09.2026 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula ….Appellant Versus Surender Singh Deswal ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Jr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1.

Through this appeal, the revenue raises the following substantial questions of law:- “A. Whether the Ld. ITAT is legally justified in quashing the notice issued u/s 148 in the case of the assessee by relying on the judgment by Hon’ble High of law adjudicated by the Hon’ble High court is altogether different? B. Whether the Hon’ble ITAT failed to exercise juri iction lawfully by adjudicating the issue as if the legal position had attained finality, despite the admitted JYOTI SHARMA 2026.09.21 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

ITA-210-2026 (O&M) -2- pendency of multiple Special Petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Union of India v. Jasjit Singh (SLP (C) No.7399 of 2025) and Union of India v. Jatinder Singh Bhangu (SLP (C) No. 15252 of 2025), thereby rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable? C. Whether on a correct interpretation of Sections 147, 148, 144B and 151A of the Income Tax Act 1961, the Honble ITAT erred in law in concluding that the issuance of notice under Section 148 by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer is invalid, despite the absence of any statutory provision expressly divesting the JAO of such juri iction, and in disregard of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. holding that Section 144B governs the procedure of faceless assessment and not the assumption of juri iction under Section 148? D. Whether the Hon’ble ITAT erred in law in not applying the settled principle that where two statutory authorities are conferred juri iction under the Act, such juri iction is concurrent unless expressly excluded, and in overlooking the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that the faceless regime is supplementary and not exclusionary of the Juri ictional Assessing Officer’s powers under Section 148? E. Whether the impugned decision of Ld. ITAT is not perverse as the they failed to consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court at Ahmedabad in the case of Income-tax [2024] 167 taxmann.com 371 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that the Notification dated 29.03.2022 does not apply to cases where notice under Section 148 is issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer on the basis of information to search and seizure JYOTI SHARMA 2026.09.21 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

ITA-210-2026 (O&M) -3- received pursuant proceedings under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act? F. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in holding that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer was invalid, ignoring the fact that the Juri ictional Assessing Officer is competent to issue such notice after obtaining the prior approval of the specified authority?”

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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →