SHEILJA KANWAR AY 2021 TO 22 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(5) CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21502/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117165202529 July 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 09.06.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the law laid down in the coordinate bench judgments of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. The court found that the respondents did not dispute that these precedents covered the present case. Consequently, the notice was quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The court did not leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sheilja Kanwar, challenged a notice dated 09.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the respondents, the Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh, and others. 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, mandating faceless assessment for such notices. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana: CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India). The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these precedents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 09.06.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is invalid in light of the notification dated 28.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment? Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the mandate of faceless assessment stipulated in the notification dated 28.03.2022. The petitioner relied on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, which held similar notices to be invalid. Revenue's contentions: The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's submissions and conceded that the case was covered by the aforementioned 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.136

CWP-21502-2025 Date of decision : 29.07.2025

Sheilja Kanwar

.…. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, 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.

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel, with 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 09.06.2025 (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 have not been done because in terms of the notification dated 28.03.2022 (Annexure P-5) 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 (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 her favour by the law laid down through the SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.08.02 14:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

CWP-21502-2025

[ 2 ]

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 09.06.2025 (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

29.07.

2025

[LAPITA BANERJI] shamsher

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.08.02 14:24 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 →