KAMALJIT KAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19057/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01103642202511 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 March 29, 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 precedent established in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, supra, which held that such notices must be issued through the faceless assessment procedure as per the notification dated March 29, 2022. The Court found that the respondents' counsel did not dispute this position. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed, with liberty granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed in terms of this relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kamaljit Kaur, challenged a notice dated March 29, 2025, issued by the respondents under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible according to a notification dated March 29, 2022, from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. This notification mandated that such notices be issued through a faceless assessment process. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in support of her argument. The respondents' counsel did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by the precedent set in the cited judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 29, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the petitioner by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was not issued through the faceless assessment procedure as mandated by the notification dated March 29, 2022. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the mandatory faceless assessment procedure stipulated in the notification dated March 29, 2022. The petitioner relied on the High Court's decisions in 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 Contentions: The respondents' counsel conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the law laid down in the judgments cited by the petitioner.

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.107

CWP-19057-2025 Date of decision : 11.07.2025

Kamaljit Kaur

.…. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, 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 29.03.2025 (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 have not been done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 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 aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co-ordinate Benches of this Court SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.07.18 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

CWP-19057-2025

[ 2 ]

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 29.03.2025 (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

11.07.

2025

[LAPITA BANERJI] shamsher

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.07.18 10:16 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 →