RAJINDER SINGLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13007/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01072531202508 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 liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the precedent set by two coordinate benches of the same High Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. The court found that the respondents' counsel did not dispute that these judgments applied to the present case. Therefore, in accordance with the law laid down in those judgments, the notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajinder Singla, challenged a notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the respondents (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 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, Government of India. This notification mandated that such notices be issued through a faceless assessment process. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in support of their argument.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2025, 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? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which contravened the mandate of the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. This notification stipulated that notices under Section 148 could only be issued via a faceless assessment procedure. The petitioner relied on the High Court's decisions in CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others). Revenue's Contentions: The respondents' counsel did not dispute the fact that the petitioner's case was covered in their favor by the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments 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-13007-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

167

CWP-13007-2025

Date of Decision: 08.05.2025

RAJINDER SINGLA

.......PETITONER

Versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHER

.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:- Mr. Tarang Goyal, 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-2) 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-4), 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-13007-2025

-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-2) 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 →