JOGESH KUMAR BHATTI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13701/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075975202514 May 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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. This decision was based on the principle laid down in the two cited judgments of the same court, Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India. The reasoning was that the notice, in the given circumstances of a faceless assessment, was not issued in accordance with the law as established by these precedents. Consequently, the notice was quashed, with liberty granted 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, Jogesh Kumar, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The challenge was based on the assertion that the notice was issued in the context of a faceless assessment scheme, as per a notification dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner argued that the notice could only have been issued by way of faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in support of this contention. The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, in the context of a faceless assessment scheme, is valid? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The impugned notice, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is invalid because it was issued in the context of a faceless assessment scheme, implying it should have been issued through that mechanism. The petitioner relies on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the facts and conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the aforesaid two judgments rendered by the coordinate 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-13701-2

IN THE Jogesh Kumar Income Tax O

CORAM : H

H

Present : M

fo

M

fo

(t

M

M

fo

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 27.03.20 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.130

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1370 Date of De

r Bhatti

Versus fficer, Ward 2 (1) REAC, Chand

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advoca or the petitioner. Ms. Mamta Gupta, Advocate, or the petitioner. through video conferencing). Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stand Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate, 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 01-2025 (O&M) ecision : 14.05.2025

…Petitioner

digarh and others …Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI ate, ding Counsel, with 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 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13701-2

ii. CWP of In 3. L that the case o through the af Benches of thi

4.

In Jatinder Sing dated 27.03.20 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 ndia and others, decided on 29.0 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 07.2024. 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 17:06 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 →