BEENU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1) CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13123/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01073137202508 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 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, which were relied upon by the petitioner. The Court found that the notification dated 29.03.2022, mandating faceless assessment, was applicable. Consequently, the notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Beenu, challenged a notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) Chandigarh and others. The petitioner's primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible. This was based on a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, mandating that such notices be issued through faceless assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is valid, in light of the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid because the notification dated 29.03.2022 stipulated that such notices must be issued via faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two judgments of the High Court: CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India). Revenue's contention: The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Department, did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by the law laid down in the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-13123-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

174

CWP-13123-2025

Date of Decision: 08.05.2025

BEENU

.......PETITONER

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1) CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:- Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel

for Income Tax Dept.

*****

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1.

Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 30.03.2025 (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.

2.

In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court:- i. CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024; and PRINCE SAINI 2025.05.13 07:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13123-2025

-2-

ii. CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents 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 and Jasjit Singh (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 30.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

5.

The petition is allowed in the above terms.

[DEEPAK SIBAL]

JUDGE

[LAPITA BANERJI] 08.05.2025

JUDGE Prince

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No PRINCE SAINI 2025.05.13 07:21 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 →