HARNEK SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13703/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01076184202514 May 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned notice dated 29.08.2024, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the law laid down in the two coordinate benches of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, namely 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 the petitioner's case was covered by these judgments. Consequently, the notice was quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harnek Singh, challenged a notice dated 29.08.2024 issued by the respondents, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Bathinda, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's primary contention was that the notice was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas, according to a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, such notices should have been issued only through a faceless assessment system. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in support of this argument. The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.08.2024, 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 assessments? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice is invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the mandate of the notification dated 29.03.2022, which requires such notices to be issued through a faceless assessment system. The petitioner relied on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others (CWP-21509-2023). Revenue's Contention: The respondents conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the aforesaid two judgments rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-13703-2

IN THE Harnek Singh Income Tax O

CORAM : H

H

Present : M

fo

M

fo

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 29.08.20 under Section challenge rais issued by the done because i issued by the notice could ha

2.

In petitioner plac i. CWP India 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.167

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1370 Date of De

… Versus fficer, Ward 1 (1), Bathinda and

… HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Tarang Goyal, Advocate, or the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing or the Income Tax Department-re *** BAL, J. (Oral)

Challenge made through the ins 024 (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 03-2025 (O&M) ecision : 14.05.2025

…Petitioner

d others

…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI g 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 2025.05.15 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13703-2

ii. CWP other

3.

L that the case o through the af Benches of thi

4.

In Jatinder Sing dated 29.08.20 Officer, is here the petitioner i

5.

T

May 14, 2025 vandana

Whether speak Whether repor 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 ( 024 (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 2025.05.15 17:07 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 →