SUNDER LAL SINGHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11454/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01064561202528 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 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 28.03.2025, 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 primary reasoning was based on the precedent established by the co-ordinate benches of the High Court regarding the invalidity of notices issued by unauthorized officers under the faceless assessment regime.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sunder Lal Singhal, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (4), Faridabad. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer who lacked the authority to do so, especially considering the faceless assessment scheme and a notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance. The petitioner argued that the notice should have been issued only in terms of the faceless assessment procedure. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in support of their submission.

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 in light of the faceless assessment scheme and the notification dated 29.03.2022, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the procedure established by law? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by an unauthorized authority, as the faceless assessment procedure, mandated by the notification dated 29.03.2022, should have been followed. They relied on the judgments in *Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others* and *Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others*. Revenue's Contention: The respondent (Income Tax Department) did not dispute the facts and 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-11454-2

IN THE Sunder Lal Sin Income Tax O

CORAM : H

H

Present : M

M

fo

M

fo

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 28.03.20 under Section challenge rais issued by the done because i issued by the notice could ha

2.

In petitioner plac i. CWP India ii. CWP other 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.152

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1145 Date of De

nghal

Versus fficer Ward 1 (4), Faridabad and

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate for Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate, or the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, 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 P-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Sin rs, decided on 29.07.2024. B AND HARYANA AT H 54-2025 (O&M) ecision : 28.04.2025

…Petitioner

d others

…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI espondent. 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 d 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-2), ment of India, the impugned faceless assessment. sion, learned counsel for the o judgments of this Court:- 2024; and 2025.05.05 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11454-2

3.

L that the case o through the af Benches of thi

4.

In Jatinder Sing dated 28.03.20 Officer, is here the petitioner i

5.

T

April 28, 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 y 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 →