OPEN DOOR WELFARE SOCIETY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13781/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075388202520 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 March 19, 2024, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to the petitioner was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the same court: Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. The court found that the respondents did not dispute that these judgments applied to the present case. Consequently, the notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty 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, Open Door Welfare Society, challenged a notice dated March 19, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jalandhar. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which the petitioner argued was impermissible. According to the petitioner, a notification dated March 29, 2022, issued by the Ministry of Finance, mandated that such notices could only be issued through a faceless assessment procedure. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated but implied to be related to the notice issued.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is valid, or if it must be issued through a faceless assessment procedure as per the notification dated March 29, 2022. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. They relied on the notification dated March 29, 2022, which stipulated that such notices could only be issued via faceless assessment. The petitioner cited two judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court: CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others). Revenue's Contention: The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Department, did not dispute the petitioner's submission. They conceded that the case was covered in favour of the petitioner by the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.159

CWP-13781-2025 Date of decision : 20.05.2025

Open Door Welfare Society

.…. Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Central Circle-1, Jalandhar and others

..... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Mr.Rohit Kaura, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel, with Ms.Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel, for the Income Tax Department.

* * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1.

Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 19.03.2024 (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 have not 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:- (i) CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024; and (ii) CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in its favour by the law laid down through the SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.05.22 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

CWP-13781-2025

[ 2 ]

aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra).

4.

In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra), the impugned notice dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure P-1), issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

5.

The petition is allowed in the above terms.

[DEEPAK SIBAL]

JUDGE

20.05.

2025

[LAPITA BANERJI] shamsher

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.05.22 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, 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 →