KARAN CHOPRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13945/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01077179202515 May 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It held that the present petition was covered by the judgments in *Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s* case and *Jasjit Singh’s* case, which were decided on 19.07.2024 and 29.07.2024, respectively. The reasoning implicitly adopted is that the notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, in contravention of the faceless assessment procedure notified by the Ministry of Finance, is invalid. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, issued after the notification dated 29.03.2022, must adhere to the faceless assessment procedure. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 14.03.2024, the consequential order dated 30.03.2025, the demand dated 30.03.2025, and the penalty show cause notice dated 31.03.2025 were quashed. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Karan Chopra, challenged a notice dated 14.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a consequential order dated 30.03.2025 under Section 147, a demand dated 30.03.2025 under Section 156, and a penalty show cause notice dated 31.03.2025, all pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2020-2021. The primary contention was that the impugned notice was issued by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas, according to a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, such notices could only be issued by way of faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 14.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021, is invalid because it was issued by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of through the faceless assessment procedure mandated by the notification dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid as it was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the mandate of the notification dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that such notices should be issued via faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on the judgments in *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 respondent (Income Tax Department) did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner. They conceded that the case was covered by the law laid down in the two judgments cited by the petitioner, which were rendered by different co-ordinate benches of the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-13945-2

IN THE

Karan Chopra Income Tax Of CORAM : H

H

Present : M

M

fo

M

M

fo

DEEPAK SIB

C issued under S order dated 30 demand dated penalty show c

2.

Th the impugned which could h 29.03.2022 (An India, the impu assessment.

3.

In petitioner place i) of 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.119 E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH CWP-13945 Date of Dec

Versus fficer, ITO Ward 2 (1), Chandigar HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPIT Mr. B.M.Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate, or the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing C Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing C or the Income Tax Department. *** BAL, J. (ORAL)

Challenge in the present petition ection 148 of the Income Tax Ac 0.03.2025 issued under Section 1 30.03.2025 issued under Sectio cause notice dated 31.03.2025, for he primary ground of challenge notice has been issued by the Ju have not been done because in t nnexure P-3), issued by the Minis ugned notice could have been is n support of his afore submiss es reliance on the following two ju CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatind f India and others, decided on 19 AND HARYANA AT H 5-2025 (O&M) cision : 15.05.2025

…Petitioner

rh and others

…Respondents PAK SIBAL TA BANERJI Counsel and Counsel,

is to notice dated 14.03.2024 ct, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’); 47 of the 1961 Act; notice of on 156 of the 1961 Act, and r AY 2020-2021. raised by the petitioner is that uri ictional Assessing Officer erms of the notification dated stry of Finance, Government of ssued only by way of faceless sion, learned counsel for the udgments of this Court:- 9.07.2024; and VANDANA 2025.05.16 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13945-2

ii) ot

4.

L the case of the the aforesaid tw this Court in Ja

5.

In of Jatinder Si 19.07.2024 and 8. A

May 15, 2025 vandana Whether speak Whether report 2025 (O&M) ) CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit thers, decided on 29.07.2024. earned counsel for the respondent petitioner is covered in its favour wo judgments rendered by two di atinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasj n the light of the above, the prese ingh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Sing d 29.07.2024, respectively. All the pending applications, if any (DEEPA

J (LAPIT

J

5

king/reasoned :

Yes/No table :

Yes/No Singh Vs. Union of India and ts does not dispute the fact that r by the law laid down through ifferent co-ordinate Benches of jit Singh’s case (supra). ent petition is allowed in terms gh’s cases (supra), decided on y, also stand disposed of. AK SIBAL) UDGE

TA BANERJI) JUDGE

VANDANA 2025.05.16 17:33 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 →