BABITA KASHYAP vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE 1

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22729/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01123280202506 August 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It was held that the impugned notice dated 31.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed in terms of the law laid down in the judgments of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). The reasoning was that the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these previous judgments, which had established that notices under Section 148 should adhere to the faceless assessment scheme. The court quashed 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, Babita Kashya, challenged a notice dated 31.03.2025 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas the faceless assessment scheme, as per a notification dated 29.03.2022, mandated that such notices should be issued only in a faceless manner. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is invalid in light of the faceless assessment scheme notified on 29.03.2022? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the faceless assessment scheme which requires such notices to be issued in a faceless manner. Reliance was placed on 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 respondents conceded that the petitioner's case was covered 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

CWP-22729 o

IN THE Babita Kashya The Joint Com

CORAM : H

H

Present : M

fo

M

M

M

fo

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 31.03.20 under Section 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.130

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-2272 Date of De

ap

Versus mmissioner of Income Tax and ot

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Rochak Singla, Advocate, or the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Mr. Vidul Kapoor and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing C or respondent-Income Tax Depar *** BAL, J. (Oral)

Challenge made through the ins 025 (Annexure P-1) issued to the 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1 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 29 of 2025 (O&M) ecision : 06.08.2025

…Petitioner

thers

…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI Counsel, Counsels rtment.

stant petition is to the notice e petitioner by the respondents 1961. The primary ground of e impugned notice has been er which could have not been d 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-4), ment of India, the impugned faceless assessment. sion, learned counsel for the o judgments of this Court:- 2024; and VANDANA 2025.08.08 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22729 o

ii. CWP other

3.

L that the case o through the af Benches of thi

4.

In Jatinder Sing dated 31.03.20 Officer, is here the petitioner i

5.

T

August 06, 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 ( 025 (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 2025.08.08 13:46 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 →