PREET LAND PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29184/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01156613202529 September 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 31.03.2023, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the precedent set by two previous judgments of the same court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. The court found that the respondents did not contest the applicability of these judgments to the present case. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Preet Land Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., challenged a notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the respondents, Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Chandigarh. The petitioner argued 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 impugned notice and the subsequent filing of the writ petition before the High Court.

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? Assessee's contention: The petitioner contended that the impugned notice dated 31.03.2023, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This was based on the Ministry of Finance's notification dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that such notices could only be issued through a faceless assessment process. The petitioner relied on two High Court judgments: CWP No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India) and CWP No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India). Revenue's contention: The respondents, the Income Tax Department, did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments cited by the petitioner.

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. 123 ) CWP No.29184 of 2025 Date of decision: 29.09.2025 Preet Land Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Chandigarh and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present : Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents- Income Tax Department. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1) Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) issued to the petitioner by the respondents 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-6), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. SUNIL YADAV 2025.09.29 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

CWP No.29184 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 respondents-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 31.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. (5)

The petition is allowed in the above terms.

(DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE

29.09.

2025

(RAMESH KUMARI) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2025.09.29 14:44 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 →