MANPREET SINGH DHODI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14385/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01079904202519 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, 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. The Court found that the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these precedents. Consequently, the notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manpreet Singh Dhodi, challenged a notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the respondents (Income Tax Officer and others). 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, requiring such notices to be issued via faceless assessment. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the filing of the instant writ petition challenging the notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 27.03.2025, 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? (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 notice is bad in law as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the faceless assessment procedure mandated by the notification dated 29.03.2022. Reliance was placed on this Court's judgments 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 revenue did not dispute that the case was covered in favour of the petitioner by the aforesaid 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. 135 ) CWP No.14385 of 2025 Date of decision: 19.05.2025 Manpreet Singh Dhodi .....Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Ms. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. (appeared through video conferencing) 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 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. SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.22 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

CWP No.14385 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 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

19.05.

2025

( LAPITA BANERJI ) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.22 10:46 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →