NECTAR LIFESCIENCES LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12842/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01071249202507 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 31.08.2024, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the same court, Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. The court found that the respondent did not dispute that these precedents covered the present case in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the court quashed the notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in these terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nectar Lifesciences Limited, challenged a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued 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. The petitioner argued that, in light of a notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance, such notices could only be issued through a faceless assessment procedure. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in support of their claim. The respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, did not dispute the applicability of these precedents.

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, when a notification dated 29.03.2022 mandates issuance through faceless assessment? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the mandate of the notification dated 29.03.2022, requiring issuance via faceless assessment. They 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 respondent did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by the aforesaid two 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

128

CWP-12842-2025

Date of Decision: 07.05.2025

NECTAR LIFESCIENCES LIMITED

.......Petitioner

Versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:- Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate, and

Ms. Parnika Singla, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel, and

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 31.08.2024 (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:- PRINCE SAINI 2025.05.08 23:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12842-2025 -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 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 31.08.2024 (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] 07.05.2025

JUDGE Prince

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No PRINCE SAINI 2025.05.08 23:42 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 →