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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17685/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01098152202501 July 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the case of the petitioner was covered by the two judgments previously rendered by the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. Consequently, the impugned notice dated March 30, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The reasoning was based on the established precedent that notices under Section 148 must adhere to the faceless assessment scheme. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued in contravention of the faceless assessment scheme, when such a scheme is applicable, is invalid. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings as per law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manjeet Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) on March 30, 2025. The primary contention was that the notice was issued in contravention of the faceless assessment scheme, as per a notification dated March 29, 2022, from the Ministry of Finance. The petitioner argued that such notices could only be issued through the faceless assessment mechanism. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in support of this argument. The respondents, the Income Tax Department, did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner.

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 under the faceless assessment scheme as mandated by the notification dated March 29, 2022. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the notification dated March 29, 2022). Assessee's contentions: The impugned notice issued by the JAO is invalid as it should have been issued through the faceless assessment mechanism as per the notification dated March 29, 2022. 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 revenue did not dispute the facts and conceded that the case of the petitioner was covered by the aforesaid two judgments 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-17685

IN THE Manjeet 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 5-2025 (O&M) Sr. No.162

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1768 Date of De

h Chawla

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 85-2025 (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-17685

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 5-2025 (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 →