POONAM PARBHAKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/37915/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01205955202519 December 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 27.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, which were relied upon by the petitioner. The Court found that the revenue did not contest the applicability of these precedents. Consequently, the notice was quashed. The respondent was granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. The Court did not leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Poonam Parbhakar, challenged a notice dated 27.03.2025 issued by the respondent Income Tax Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible according to a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, mandating faceless assessment for such notices. The assessment year is not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the issuance of the notice and the subsequent challenge through a writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is valid, when a notification from the Ministry of Finance mandates faceless assessment for such notices? The assessee argued that the impugned notice, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid because it contravened the mandate of faceless assessment as per the notification dated 29.03.2022. The assessee relied on two judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court: CWP No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others). The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, did not dispute that the case was covered by the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ( Sr. No. 119 ) CWP No.37915 of 2025 Date of decision: 19.12.2025 Poonam Parbhakar .....Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel and Ms. Kavita, Advocate for the respondent- Income Tax Department. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1) Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued to the petitioner by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the impugned notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer which could not have been done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-2), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. SUNIL YADAV 2025.12.19 13:08 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

CWP No.37915 of 2025

[2]

(2)

In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court :- (i) CWP No.15745 of 2024 - Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. (ii) CWP No.21509 of 2023 - Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. (3)

Learned counsel for the respondent-Income Tax Department does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in his favour by the law laid down through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra). (4)

In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra), the impugned notice dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. (5)

The petition is allowed in the above terms.

(DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE

19.12.

2025

( LAPITA BANERJI ) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2025.12.19 13:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. 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 →