MEENAKSHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11681/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01064796202508 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 March 26, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in the previously cited judgments of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. The Court found that the notification dated March 29, 2022, requiring faceless assessment for such notices, had not been complied with. Consequently, the notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law, implying they could issue a fresh notice following the prescribed faceless assessment procedure. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued contrary to a mandatory procedural notification, such as the one mandating faceless assessment, is liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Meenakshi, challenged a notice dated March 26, 2025, issued by the respondents (Income Tax Officer and others) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible according to a notification dated March 29, 2022, from the Ministry of Finance. This notification mandated that such notices could only be issued through a faceless assessment procedure. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in support of her argument. The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is valid, given the mandate of faceless assessment as per the notification dated March 29, 2022? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the notification dated March 29, 2022). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid because the notification dated March 29, 2022, stipulated that notices under Section 148 must be issued via a faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on the judgments 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), both decided by co-ordinate benches of the High Court. Revenue's Contentions: The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's submissions and conceded that the case was covered by the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11681-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

165

CWP-11681-2025

Date of Decision: 08.05.2025

MEENAKSHI

.......PETITONER

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:- Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel

for Income Tax Dept. (Through Video Conferencing)

*****

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1.

Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 26.03.2025 (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-3), 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-11681-2025

-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 26.03.2025 (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 →