PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA vs. DEEPAK GOYAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/235/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01081024202614 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal decided in favour of the respondent-assessee. The reasoning provided is that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was challenged by the assessee, had not been issued by a faceless Assessing Officer. This specific issue was conclusively decided in favour of the assessee by a judgment of the High Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that a notice under Section 148 not issued by a faceless Assessing Officer is invalid, as per the High Court's ruling.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (Revenue) is the appellant, and Deepak Goyal (Assessee) is the respondent. The appeal challenges an order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh. The ITAT had decided the matter in favour of the assessee, holding that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was impugned by the assessee, had not been issued by a faceless Assessing Officer. The procedural history leading to this appeal involves the ITAT's decision favoring the assessee on this specific ground.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was validly issued by a faceless Assessing Officer, which is a question of law and fact. The Revenue contends that the notice was validly issued. The Assessee contends that the notice was not issued by a faceless Assessing Officer, rendering it invalid. The Tribunal's decision hinges on this procedural aspect of the notice issuance. The judgment refers to a prior decision of the High Court in Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, which appears to have conclusively decided this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

AT CHANDIGARH 192 ITA-235-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.09.2026 Pr. Commission of Income Tax Patiala ....Appellant Versus Deepak Goyal ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Jr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. ***** DEEPAK SIBAL

, J (ORAL)

1.

Through the impugned order dated 12.01.2026, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short – ITAT) decided the matter in favour of the respondent-assessee on the ground that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short – the Act) impugned by the respondent-assessee had not been issued by the faceless Assessing Officer. 2. The afore issue stands conclusively decided in favour of the respondent-assessee by a judgment of this Court dated 10.09.2026 passed in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. 3. In the light of law laid down in Jyoti Sareen’s case (supra), the present appeal is dismissed. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE

(SUNISH BINDLISH) 14.09.2026 JUDGE D.Bansal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DINESH BANSAL 2026.09.18 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →