PARVESH SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5) CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17693/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01098165202501 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 law laid down in the two judgments previously rendered by its co-ordinate Benches in *Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India* and *Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India*. Consequently, the impugned notice dated March 25, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Parvesh Sharma, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 25, 2025, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued in the context of a faceless assessment scheme, as per a notification dated March 29, 2022, from the Ministry of Finance. The petitioner argued that the notice should have been issued only through the faceless assessment procedure. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in support of their submission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 25, 2025, is invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in the context of a faceless assessment scheme, contrary to the notification dated March 29, 2022, issued by the Ministry of Finance. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid as it should have been issued only through the faceless assessment procedure, citing the notification dated March 29, 2022. Reliance was placed on the High Court judgments in *Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India* and *Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India*. Revenue's Contention: The respondents (Income Tax Department) did not dispute the facts and conceded that the case of the petitioner was covered by the law laid down in 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-17693

IN THE Parvesh Sharm Income Tax O

CORAM : H

H

Present : M fo

M

M

fo

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 25.03.20 under Section challenge rais issued by the done because i issued by the notice could ha

2.

In petitioner plac i. CWP India 3-2025 (O&M) Sr. No.164

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1769 Date of De

ma

… Versus fficer Ward 5(5), Chandigarh an

… HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Ms. Meena, 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-6) 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 93-2025 (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-9), 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-17693

ii. CWP other

3.

L that the case o through the af Benches of thi

4.

In Jatinder Sing dated 25.03.20 Officer, is here the petitioner i

5.

T

July 01, 2025 vandana

Whether speak Whether repor 3-2025 (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-6), 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 →