RAJINDER SINGLA vs. DEPUTY COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14563/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080708202520 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 30.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the principle laid down in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India (supra). The Court found that the notice was not issued in terms of the faceless assessment procedure mandated by the notification dated 29.03.2022. Consequently, the notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, implying they could issue a fresh notice if permissible under the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajinder Singh, challenged a notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by an officer who lacked the authority to do so, as it should have been issued in terms of a notification dated 29.03.2022 by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which mandated faceless assessments. The petitioner argued that the impugned notice could only have been issued via this faceless assessment procedure. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in support of their submission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is invalid because it was not issued in accordance with the notification dated 29.03.2022, mandating faceless assessments? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was issued by an officer who lacked the authority to do so, as the notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance mandated that such notices be issued only through the faceless assessment procedure. The petitioner relied on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India (CWP-15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India (CWP-21509-2023) to support this argument. Revenue's Contention: The respondents (Income Tax Department) did not dispute the facts and conceded that the case of the petitioner was covered by the law laid down in the two 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-14563 o

IN THE Rajinder Singl Deputy Comm Tax, Circle 1 (

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 of 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.133

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1456 Date of De

la

… Versus missioner of Income Tax/Assistan (1), Chandigarh and others

… HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Tarang Goyal, Advocate, or the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing 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 Jurisdictional 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 63-2025 (O&M) ecision : 20.05.2025

…Petitioner

nt Commissioner of Income

…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI Counsel and Counsel, 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 2025.05.22 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-14563 o

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

May 20, 2025 vandana

Whether speak Whether repor of 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 Jurisdictional Assessing respondents to proceed against ve terms. AK SIBAL) JUDGE

TA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.05.22 09:36 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 →