RAMNEEK SINGH REAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/27708/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01149740202517 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 30.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. The Court found that the respondent did not dispute the petitioner's contention that the case was covered by the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. In light of these precedents, which established that notices under Section 148 should be issued through faceless assessment as per the notification, the Court quashed the impugned notice. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148, when the applicable notification mandates faceless assessment, is liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ramneek Singh Real, challenged a notice dated 30.03.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 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 from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. This notification mandated that such notices could only be issued through a faceless assessment procedure. The respondent, the Income Tax Department, did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by previous judgments of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid in light of the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the notification dated 29.03.2022 that requires such notices to be issued via faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two High Court judgments: CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others). Revenue's Contention: The respondent did not dispute the petitioner's submissions and conceded that the case was covered by the aforesaid 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.126

CWP-27708-2025 Date of decision : 17.09.2025

Ramneek Singh Real

.…. Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,

Chandigarh

..... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate, for the petitioner.

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 30.03.2025 (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 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.

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 India and others, decided on 19.07.2024; and SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.09.18 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

CWP-27708-2025

[ 2 ]

(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 his 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 30.03.2025 (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

17.09.

2025

[LAPITA BANERJI] shamsher

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.09.18 15:49 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 →