DRISHINDER SINGH SANDHAWALIA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11465/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01061668202528 April 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It was held that the impugned notice dated 30.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the principle laid down in the High Court's own previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. The reasoning was that the notice, issued in the context of a faceless assessment, was not issued by the competent authority as per the established procedure. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 must adhere to the procedural requirements, especially when a faceless assessment scheme is in operation. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Drishinder Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid because it was issued in the context of a faceless assessment scheme, citing a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance. The petitioner argued that the notice should have been issued by the proper authority under the faceless assessment framework. The respondents, the Income Tax Department, did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by previous judgments of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, in the context of a faceless assessment scheme, is valid? (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 petitioner argued that the notice was invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in a faceless assessment regime, which contravenes the established procedure for such assessments as per the notification dated 29.03.2022. Reliance was placed on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others (CWP-21509-2023). Revenue's contention: The respondents conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by 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-11465-2

IN THE Drishinder Sin Principal Com

CORAM : H

H

Present : M

M

fo

M

M

fo

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 30.03.20 under Section challenge rais issued by the done because i issued by the notice could ha

2.

In petitioner plac i. CWP India 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.125

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1146 Date of De

ngh Sandhawalia

Versus mmissioner of Income Tax-I, Cha

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Viraj Gandhi, Advocate and Mr. Adarsh Kumar Dubey, Advoc or the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stand Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate, or the Income Tax Department-re *** 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 dated Ministry of Finance, Governm ave been issued only by way of f 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 B AND HARYANA AT H 65-2025 (O&M) ecision : 28.04.2025

…Petitioner

andigarh and others …Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI cate, ding Counsel, with espondents. stant petition is to the notice e petitioner by the respondents 1961. The primary ground of e impugned notice has been r which could have not been d 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-3), ment of India, the impugned faceless assessment. sion, learned counsel for the o judgments of this Court:- 2024; and VANDANA 2025.05.05 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11465-2

ii. CWP other

3.

L that the case o through the af Benches of thi

4.

In Jatinder Sing dated 30.03.20 Officer, is here the petitioner i

5.

T

April 28, 202 vandana

Whether speak Whether repor 2025 (O&M) P-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Sin rs, decided on 29.07.2024. 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 gh Vs. Union of India and 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 2025.05.05 12:08 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 →