PRATHM ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE 1

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28246/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01152665202522 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 22.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the same court, namely Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. The court found that the respondents did not dispute that the present case was covered by these precedents. Consequently, the notice was quashed with liberty granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in terms of this relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pratham Estate Pvt. Ltd., challenged a notice dated 22.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the respondent, the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible according to a notification dated 28.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. This notification mandated that such notices could only be issued through faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in support of their argument. The respondent's counsel did not dispute that the case was covered by the aforementioned judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is valid, when a notification mandates issuance through faceless assessment? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice dated 22.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This was because, in terms of the notification dated 28.03.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, such notices could only be issued via faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two judgments of the Punjab & Haryana 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 respondent's counsel did not dispute the fact that the petitioner's case was covered in their favour by the law laid down in the two cited judgments.

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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.127

CWP-28246-2025 Date of decision : 22.09.2025

Pratham Estate Pvt. Ltd.

.…. Petitioner Versus The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,

Chandigarh and others

..... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Mr. Rochak Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner

(appeared through video conferencing).

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel, with

Mr. Vidul Kapur, Junior Standing Counsel, and

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel,

for the Income Tax Department.

* * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1.

Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 22.03.2025 (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 Juri ictional Assessing Officer which could have not been done because in terms of the notification dated 28.03.2022 (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.

2.

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 SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.09.25 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

CWP-28246-2025

[ 2 ]

India and others, decided on 19.07.2024; and (ii) CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in its favour by the law laid down through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra).

4.

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 22.03.2025 (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

22.09.

2025

[LAPITA BANERJI] shamsher

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.09.25 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, 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 →