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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17691/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01098159202501 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 different co-ordinate Benches of the Court, namely Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 30.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was quashed. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in the above terms. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. The Court did not leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kulwinder Singh Chawla, challenged a notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 6(1), Chandigarh. The primary contention was that the notice was issued in contravention of the faceless assessment scheme, as indicated by a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance. The petitioner argued that the notice should have been issued only through the faceless assessment procedure. The respondents, the Income Tax Department, did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner and conceded that the case was covered by previous judgments of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is invalid due to being issued in contravention of the faceless assessment scheme, as per the notification dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was issued in violation of the faceless assessment procedure, which mandates that such notices should be issued through a faceless mechanism. Reliance was placed on two High Court judgments: Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others (decided on 29.07.2024). Revenue's Contention: The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's submission and acknowledged that the case was covered by the aforementioned 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-17691

IN THE Kulwinder Sin 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 1-2025 (O&M) Sr. No.163

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1769 Date of De

ngh 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 91-2025 (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-17691

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 1-2025 (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 →