SUKH GAS SERVICE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19412/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01106810202517 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 17.06.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the precedent set by two coordinate benches of the same court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. The reasoning was that the notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance mandated that such notices be issued through faceless assessment, and therefore, issuance by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was impermissible. The court quashed the notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 must adhere to the faceless assessment procedure as mandated by relevant government notifications.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sukh Gas Service, challenged a notice dated 17.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the respondents, Income Tax Officer Ward 5(5), 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 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, mandating faceless assessment for such notices. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court: CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India). The respondents' counsel did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these precedents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 17.06.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is invalid in light of the faceless assessment notification dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's contention: The notice is invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the mandate of faceless assessment prescribed by the Ministry of Finance notification dated 29.03.2022. The assessee relied on this Court's decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The revenue's counsel did not dispute the assessee's submissions and acknowledged 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.131

CWP-19412-2025 Date of decision : 17.07.2025

Sukh Gas Service

.…. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 5(5),

Chandigarh and others

..... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Mr. Rohit Kaura, 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 17.06.2025 (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 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-3) 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 its favour by the law laid down through the SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.07.22 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

CWP-19412-2025

[ 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 17.06.2025 (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

17.07.

2025

[LAPITA BANERJI] shamsher

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.07.22 09:34 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 →