ONKAR SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18448/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01102108202507 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 case of the petitioner was covered by the two previous judgments rendered by its coordinate Benches in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). Consequently, in terms of the law laid down in those judgments, the impugned notice dated 30.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to the petitioner, was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in the above terms. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Onkar Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the respondents, Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Chandigarh, and others. The primary contention was that the impugned notice was not issued in terms of the faceless assessment scheme, as per the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance. The petitioner argued that the notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. To support this, the petitioner placed reliance on two previous judgments of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is invalid because it was not issued in terms of the faceless assessment scheme as per the notification dated 29.03.2022, thereby violating the principles of faceless assessment. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was not issued in accordance with the faceless assessment scheme and therefore was liable to be quashed. Reliance was placed on the judgments in 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 Contentions: The respondents did not dispute the facts and conceded that the case of the petitioner was covered by the aforesaid two judgments rendered by the coordinate Benches of the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-18448-

IN THE Onkar Singh Income Tax O

CORAM : H

H

Present : M fo

M

M M

fo

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 30.03.20 under Section challenge rais issued by the done because i issued by the notice could ha

2.

In petitioner plac i. CWP India -2025 (O&M)

Sr. No.143

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1844 Date of De

Versus fficer, Ward 6(1), Chandigarh an

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate or the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stand Mr. Vaibhav Gupta and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing C or the Income Tax Department-re *** 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 48-2025 (O&M) ecision : 07.07.2025

…Petitioner

nd others

…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI ding Counsel and ounsels espondents. 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-2), ment of India, the impugned faceless assessment. sion, learned counsel for the o judgments of this Court:- 2024; and VANDANA 2025.07.09 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18448-

ii. CWP other

3.

L that the case o through the af Benches of thi

4.

In Jatinder Sing dated 30.03.20 Officer, is here the petitioner i

5.

T

July 07, 2025 vandana

Whether speak Whether repor -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

5

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 2025.07.09 09:36 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 →