MANU GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11980/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01063498202530 April 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the case of the petitioner was covered by the law laid down in the two previous judgments of the Court, namely *Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others* and *Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others*. Consequently, the impugned notice dated March 31, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was quashed. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in the above terms. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manu Gupta, challenged a notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Bhatinda/Haryana and another under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 31, 2025. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid because it was issued by an officer who lacked jurisdiction, as per a notification dated March 29, 2022, from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which mandated that such notices could only be issued through a faceless assessment system. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in support of this contention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid due to the officer lacking jurisdiction, in light of the notification dated March 29, 2022, mandating faceless assessment procedures. Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was issued by an officer who could not have done so, as the notification dated March 29, 2022, from the Ministry of Finance stipulated that notices under Section 148 could only be issued through a faceless assessment system. - Reliance was placed on two High Court judgments: *Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others* (CWP-15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and *Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others* (CWP-21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2025). Revenue's Contentions: - The respondent-Income Tax Department did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner. - The respondent conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the law laid down in the aforementioned two judgments rendered by the co-ordinate Benches 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-11980-2

IN THE Manu Gupta Income Tax O

CORAM : H

H

Present : M

fo

(t

M fo

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 31.03.20 under Section challenge rais issued by the done because Ministry of Fin been issued on 2. In petitioner plac i. CWP India ii. CWP other 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.144

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1198 Date of De

Versus fficer, Ward-1, Bhatinda/Haryan

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Nitin Kanwar, Advocate, or the petitioner. through video conferencing) Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, or the respondent-Income Tax De *** BAL, J. (Oral)

Challenge made through the ins 025 (Annexure P-1) issued to the 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1 ed by the petitioner is that th Jurisdictional Assessing Office in terms of the notification dat nance, Government of India, the nly by way of faceless assessmen n support of his afore submiss es reliance on the following two P-15745-2024, titled Jatinder S a and others, decided on 19.07.2 P-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Sin rs, decided on 29.07.2024. B AND HARYANA AT H 80-2025 (O&M) ecision : 30.04.2025

…Petitioner

na and another

…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI epartment. stant petition is to the notice e petitioner by the respondents 1961. The primary ground of he impugned notice has been er which could have not been ted 29.03.2022 issued by the e impugned notice could have nt. sion, learned counsel for the o judgments of this Court:- 2024; and 2025.05.07 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11980-2

3.

L that the case o through the af Benches of thi

4.

In Jatinder Sing dated 31.03.20 Officer, is here the petitioner i

5.

T

April 30, 202 vandana

Whether speak Whether repor 2025 (O&M) earned counsel for the responde of the petitioner is covered in his foresaid two judgments rendered is Court in Jatinder Singh Bhan n the light of the above, in ter gh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh ( 025 (Annexure P-1), issued by eby quashed with liberty to the r in accordance with law. he petition is allowed in the abov

(DEEPA

J (LAPIT

J

25

king/reasoned :

Yes/No rtable :

Yes/No ents does not dispute the fact s favour by the law laid down d by two different co-ordinate ngu and Jasjit Singh (supra). rms of the law laid down in (supra), the impugned notice the Jurisdictional Assessing respondents to proceed against ve terms. AK SIBAL) JUDGE

TA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.05.07 11:14 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 →