HARKIRAN SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17684/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01098168202501 July 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryQuashed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be quashed. The reasoning was based on the fact that the revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention that the case was covered by the two previous judgments of the High Court, namely Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. These judgments had laid down the principle that notices issued under a faceless assessment scheme by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer were invalid. Therefore, in terms of the law laid down in these precedents, the notice issued to the petitioner by the JAO was quashed. The revenue was granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harkiran Singh, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.03.2025, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid because it was issued under a faceless assessment scheme, as per a notification dated 29.03.2022, and therefore, it should have been issued by the JAO. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in support of this argument. The respondents, the Income Tax Department, did not dispute the facts and conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the aforementioned judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid if it is issued under a faceless assessment scheme by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the procedure prescribed by the notification dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice, issued under Section 148, was invalid because it was issued under a faceless assessment scheme, and the notification dated 29.03.2022 stipulated that such notices could only be issued by the JAO. Reliance was placed on the High Court 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 contention: The revenue did not dispute the facts and conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the two 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

CWP-17684

IN THE Harkiran Singh Income Tax O

CORAM : H

H

Present : M fo

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 4-2025 (O&M) Sr. No.161

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1768 Date of De

h

Versus fficer Ward 6(1), Chandigarh an

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Pawandeep Singh, Advocate, or the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stand Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing C or the Income Tax Department-re *** BAL, J. (Oral)

Challenge made through the ins 025 (Annexure P-2) 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 84-2025 (O&M) ecision : 01.07.2025

…Petitioner

nd others

…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI

ding Counsel and Counsel (through VC) 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-4), ment of India, the impugned faceless assessment. sion, learned counsel for the o judgments of this Court:- 2024; and VANDANA 2025.07.02 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17684

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 01, 2025 vandana

Whether speak Whether repor 4-2025 (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-2), 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 2025.07.02 17:20 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 →