VISHAL SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13689/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075834202514 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 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was liable to be quashed. The Court's decision was based on the fact that the respondents did not dispute the petitioner's contention that the case was covered by the previous judgments of the Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. In terms of the law laid down in those judgments, the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was considered to be contrary to the faceless assessment procedure. Consequently, the Court quashed the notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in these terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vishal Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad. The primary ground for the challenge was that the notice was issued in contravention of the faceless assessment scheme, specifically referencing a notification dated March 29, 2022, from the Ministry of Finance. The petitioner argued that the notice should have been issued only through the faceless assessment mechanism. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in support of their contention. The respondents, the Income Tax Department, did not dispute the facts and conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the aforementioned judgments.

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 faceless assessment scheme 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 as it contravened the faceless assessment procedure mandated by the notification dated March 29, 2022. They relied on the judgments in CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India) to support this claim. Revenue's Contention: The respondents did not dispute the facts and conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the two judgments cited by the petitioner, which were rendered by co-ordinate Benches 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-13689-2

IN THE Vishal Singh Income Tax O

CORAM : H

H

Present : M

M

fo

M M

fo

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 28.03.20 under Section challenge rais issued by the done because i issued by the notice could ha

2.

In petitioner plac i. CWP India 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.166

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1368 Date of De

… Versus Officer, Ward 2 (3), Faridabad an

… HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advoca Ms. Mamta Gupta, Advocate (thro or the petitioner. Mr.Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Cou Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing C or the Income Tax Department-re *** BAL, J. (Oral)

Challenge made through the ins 025 (Annexure P-1) 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 89-2025 (O&M) ecision : 14.05.2025

…Petitioner

nd others

…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI ate, ough video conferencing) unsel 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-2), 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-13689-2

ii. CWP other

3.

L that the case o through the af Benches of thi

4.

In Jatinder Sing dated 28.03.20 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 ( 025 (Annexure P-1), 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 →