HARINDER SINGH SANDHU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28764/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01154598202525 September 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 26.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. 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 respondents' counsel did not dispute that these judgments covered the present case in favour of the petitioner. The reasoning was that the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandated faceless assessment, and the issuance of the notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was in contravention of this mandate. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued under Section 148 by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, when faceless assessment is mandated by a government notification, is invalid. The operative direction was to quash the notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harinder Singh Sandhu, challenged a notice dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the respondents, the Income Tax Officer and others. The petitioner's primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible according to a notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-6) from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, mandating faceless assessment for such notices. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the filing of a Civil Writ Petition (CWP) No. 28764 of 2025 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 26.06.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is invalid in light of the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment? (Question of law). Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the mandate of faceless assessment prescribed by the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance. - Reliance was placed on two judgments of the High Court: CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others) decided on 19.07.2024, and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others) decided on 29.07.2024. Revenue's Contentions: - The learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered in his favour by the aforesaid two judgments rendered by the High Court.

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. 134 ) CWP No.28764 of 2025 Date of decision: 25.09.2025 Harinder Singh Sandhu .....Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Rochak Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel (appeared through video conferencing) and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent(s)- Income Tax Department. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1) Learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his claim only to the challenge to the notice dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued to the petitioner by the respondents under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (2) The primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the impugned notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer which could have not been done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-6), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government SUNIL YADAV 2025.09.26 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

CWP No.28764 of 2025

[2]

of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. (3)

In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court:- (i) CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others decided on 19.07.2024,

(ii) CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others decided on 29.07.2024. (4)

Learned counsel for the respondents 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). (5)

In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra), the impugned notice dated 26.06.2025 (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. (6)

The petition is allowed in the above terms.

(DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE

25.09.

2025

( LAPITA BANERJI ) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2025.09.26 11:46 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 →