PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA vs. KUSUM MITTAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/240/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01086329202614 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue regarding the validity of the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had already been conclusively decided in favour of the respondent-assessee by a previous judgment of the High Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Following the law laid down in the Jyoti Sareen case, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The reasoning is based on the precedent established in the Jyoti Sareen case, which affirmed that a notice under Section 148 not issued by a faceless Assessing Officer is invalid. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Patiala, is in appeal against the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh. The ITAT had decided the matter in favour of the respondent-assessee, Kusum Mittal. The basis for the ITAT's decision was 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. The present appeal challenges this ITAT order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid if not issued by a faceless Assessing Officer? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was not issued by a faceless Assessing Officer, which rendered it invalid. The ITAT accepted this contention. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue is appealing the ITAT's decision. The judgment does not explicitly record the Revenue's arguments, but it is implied they are challenging the ITAT's finding on the validity of the Section 148 notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 193 ITA-240-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.09.2026 Pr. Commission of Income Tax Patiala ....Appellant Versus Kusum Mittal ....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 27.11.2025, 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 →