DRISHINDER SINGH SANDHAWALIA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11614/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01062389202528 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 impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was liable to be quashed. The Court relied on its previous decisions 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 was issued in contravention of the established procedure for faceless assessments as per the notification dated March 29, 2022. The Court quashed the notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Drishinder Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid as it was issued in the context of a faceless assessment scheme, citing a notification dated March 29, 2022, from the Ministry of Finance. The petitioner contended that the notice could only have been issued in accordance with the faceless assessment procedure. The revenue department did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner and conceded that the case was covered by previous judgments of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid if it was issued in the context of a faceless assessment scheme, contrary to the provisions of the notification dated March 29, 2022, issued by the Ministry of Finance. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in a faceless assessment scenario, which was not permissible under the notification dated March 29, 2022. Reliance was placed on two High Court judgments: Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others (2024) and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others (2024). Revenue's contention: The respondents (Income Tax Department) did not dispute the facts and conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the law laid down in 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

CWP-11614-2

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.129

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1161 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 14-2025 (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 2025.05.06 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11614-2

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 2025.05.06 14:57 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 →