NEELU SAXENA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22082/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01120047202501 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 impugned notice dated 28.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the same court, Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. The court found that the respondents did not dispute that these judgments applied to the present case. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Neelu Saxena, challenged a notice dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondents (Income Tax Officer and others) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible. This was based on a notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-2) from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, mandating that such notices should be issued through a faceless assessment process. The case was filed before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is valid, or if it must be issued through a faceless assessment process as per the notification dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice dated 28.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid because the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandated that such notices could only be issued via faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two judgments of the High Court: 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 respondents, represented by Sr. Standing Counsel and Jr. Standing Counsel, did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered in their favor by the law laid down in the aforementioned two 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

125

CWP-22082-2025

Date of Decision: 01.08.2025

NEELU SAXENA

.......Petitioner

Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

....Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:- Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel, with

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsel, and

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel,

for respondent-Income Tax Department.

*****

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1.

Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued to the petitioner by the respondents 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 not have 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 PRINCE SAINI 2025.08.05 02:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22082-2025 -2-

ii. CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the 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 and Jasjit Singh (supra).

4.

In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra), the impugned notice dated 28.03.2025 (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

[LAPITA BANERJI] 01.08.2025

JUDGE PRINCE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No PRINCE SAINI 2025.08.05 02:12 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 →