M/S KAPEDOME ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14667/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01081624202521 May 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 24.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the same court, Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. These judgments established that notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should have been issued through the faceless assessment procedure as per the notification dated 29.03.2022. The revenue did not contest this position. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed. The court granted liberty to the respondent (revenue) to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. The court did not leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Kapedome Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., challenged a notice dated 24.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Chandigarh. The petitioner's primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible according to a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. This notification mandated that such notices be issued through a faceless assessment procedure. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the issuance of the notice and the subsequent filing of the writ petition before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 24.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is invalid in light of the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment procedures? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which contravened the notification dated 29.03.2022, requiring faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two judgments of the High Court: CWP No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others). The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered in their favour by the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ( Sr. No. 136 ) CWP No.14667 of 2025 Date of decision: 21.05.2025 M/s Kapedome Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents-Income Tax Department. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1) Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued to the petitioner by the respondents under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the impugned notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer which could not have been done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-2), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.22 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

CWP No.14667 of 2025

[2]

(2)

In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court :- (i) CWP No.15745 of 2024 - Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. (ii) CWP No.21509 of 2023 - Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. (3)

Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in his favour by the law laid down through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra). (4)

In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra), the impugned notice dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. (5)

The petition is allowed in the above terms.

(DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE

21.05.

2025

( LAPITA BANERJI ) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.22 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →