PRIYANKA SINGH NAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15869/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01086519202528 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 27.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the precedent established in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, where similar notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer were held to be invalid in light of the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment. The Court found that the respondent did not contest this legal position. Consequently, the notice was quashed, with liberty granted to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed in these terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Priyanka Singh Nain, challenged a notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer and others. The 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, mandating faceless assessment for such notices. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in support of this argument. The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by the precedent set in those judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is valid, given the mandate for faceless assessment under the notification dated 29.03.2022? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the notification dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid as it contravened the notification dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that such notices must be issued through faceless assessment. Reliance was placed on the High Court's decisions in 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). Revenue's contention: The respondent did not dispute the petitioner's submissions and acknowledged that the case was covered 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. 139 ) CWP No.15869 of 2025 Date of decision: 28.05.2025 Priyanka Singh Nain .....Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents-Income Tax Department. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1) Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 27.03.2025 (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. (2) In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court :- SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.29 19:34 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

CWP No.15869 of 2025

[2]

(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 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Jurisdictional 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

28.05.

2025

( LAPITA BANERJI ) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.29 19:34 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 →