RAMESH KUMAR UPPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13046/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01072499202508 May 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned notice dated March 28, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the reasoning that the notification dated March 29, 2022, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, mandates that such notices be issued through faceless assessment. The Tribunal acknowledged that the respondents did not dispute the petitioner's contention and conceded that the case was covered by previous judgments of the Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the impugned notice, with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ramesh Kumar Uppal, challenged a notice dated March 28, 2025, issued by the Income Tax Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2021-22. The petitioner contended 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, Government of India. This notification mandated that such notices be issued through faceless assessment. The respondents, the Income Tax Department, did not dispute this fact.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2021-22 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is valid, when a notification mandates issuance through faceless assessment? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the notification dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The impugned notice is invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the mandatory faceless assessment procedure stipulated by the Ministry of Finance notification dated 29.03.2022. Reliance was placed on this Court's decisions in CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India). Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner and conceded that the case was covered by the judgments relied upon by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

169 CWP-13046-2025

Date of decision: 08.05.2025 RAMESH KUMAR UPPAL ...Petitioner VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel and Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents - Income Tax Department. **** DEEPAK SIBAL

, J.(ORAL)

1.

Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued to the petitioner by the respondents under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2021-22. The primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the impugned notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer which could have not 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:- NISHA 2025.05.13 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13046-2025 -2- (i) CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024; and (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’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (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 28.03.2025 (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) JUDGE 08.05.2025

Nisha Yadav

Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NISHA 2025.05.13 09:49 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →