KANTA RANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23381/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01126244202512 August 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the case of the petitioner was covered by the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). Consequently, in terms of the law laid down in those judgments, the impugned notice dated 23.03.2024, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was quashed. The Court granted liberty to the respondents (Income Tax Department) to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No specific issue was left undecided; the court directly addressed the validity of the notice based on the cited precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kanta Rani, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was primarily based on the ground that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas it should have been issued in terms of a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which mandated faceless assessment. The petitioner argued that the notice could only have been issued by way of faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in support of this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021 is invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of through the faceless assessment procedure mandated by the notification dated 29.03.2022? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the impugned notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible as the notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance mandated that such notices be issued through a faceless assessment process. The assessee relied on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others (CWP-21509-2023). Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the facts and conceded that the case of the petitioner was covered by the aforesaid two judgments rendered by the coordinate Benches of the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-23381 o

IN THE Kanta Rani Income Tax O

CORAM : H

H

Present : M

fo

M

M

fo

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 23.03.20 under Section proceedings fo challenge rais issued by the done because i issued by the notice could ha

2.

In petitioner plac i. CWP India of 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.134

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-2338 Date of De

Versus fficer, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana and

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advoca or the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Ms. Nikita Garg, Jr. Standing Cou or respondent-Income Tax Depar *** BAL, J. (Oral)

Challenge made through the ins 024 (Annexure P-1) issued to the n 148 of the Income Tax Act, or the Assessment year 2020-20 ed by the petitioner is that th Juri ictional Assessing Office in terms of the notification dated Ministry of Finance, Governm ave been issued only by way of f n support of his afore submiss es reliance on the following two P-15745-2024, titled Jatinder S a and others, decided on 19.07.2 B AND HARYANA AT H 81 of 2025 (O&M) ecision : 12.08.2025

…Petitioner

others

…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI ate, Counsel and unsel, rtment. stant petition is to the notice e petitioner by the respondents 1961 and all consequential 021 . The primary ground of e impugned notice has been er which could have not been d 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-3), ment of India, the impugned faceless assessment. sion, learned counsel for the o judgments of this Court:- 2024; and VANDANA 2025.08.13 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23381 o

ii. CWP other

3.

L that the case o through the af Benches of thi

4.

In Jatinder Sing dated 23.03.20 Officer, is here the petitioner i

5.

T

August 12, 20 vandana

Whether speak Whether repor of 2025 (O&M) P-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Sin rs, decided on 29.07.2024. earned counsel for the responde of the petitioner is covered in his foresaid two judgments rendered is Court in Jatinder Singh Bhan n the light of the above, in ter gh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh ( 024 (Annexure P-1), issued by eby quashed with liberty to the r in accordance with law. he petition is allowed in the abov

(DEEPA

J (LAPIT

J

025

king/reasoned :

Yes/No rtable :

Yes/No gh Vs. Union of India and ents does not dispute the fact s favour by the law laid down d by two different co-ordinate ngu and Jasjit Singh (supra). rms of the law laid down in (supra), the impugned notice y the Juri ictional Assessing respondents to proceed against ve terms. AK SIBAL) JUDGE

TA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.08.13 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →