MANJIT KAUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11566/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01064585202528 April 2025Bench: 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 co-ordinate Benches of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). Consequently, in terms of the law laid down in these judgments, the impugned notice dated March 26, 2024, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in these terms. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manjit Kaur, challenged a notice dated March 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid because it was issued under a faceless assessment scheme, as per a notification dated March 29, 2022, from the Ministry of Finance. The petitioner contended that such a notice could only have been issued by way of faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court: Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others (decided on July 19, 2024) and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others (decided on July 29, 2024). The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under a faceless assessment scheme, contrary to the notification dated March 29, 2022, which stipulated that such notices could only be issued via faceless assessment? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the notification dated March 29, 2022). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas the notification dated March 29, 2022, mandated that such notices should be issued through faceless assessment. Reliance was placed on Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. Revenue's Contention: The respondents conceded 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

CWP-11566-2

IN THE Manjit Kaur Principal Com

CORAM : H

Present : M

M M

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 26.03.20 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.156

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1156 Date of De

… Versus mmissioner of Income Tax, Patial

… HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, or the petitioner. Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing or the respondents. through video conferencing). *** BAL, J. (Oral)

Challenge made through the ins 024 (Annexure P-2) 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 Page 1 of 2 B AND HARYANA AT H 66-2025 (O&M) ecision : 28.04.2025

…Petitioner

la and others

…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI g Counsel, stant petition is to the notice e petitioner by the respondents 1961. The primary ground of e impugned notice has been er which could have not been d 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-1), ment of India, the impugned faceless assessment. sion, learned counsel for the o judgments of this Court:- Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of 2024; and VANDANA 2025.05.05 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11566-2

ii. CWP other 3.

L that the case o through the af Benches of thi 4.

In Jatinder Sing dated 26.03.20 Officer, is here the petitioner i 5.

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 ( 024 (Annexure P-2), issued by eby quashed with liberty to the r in accordance with law. he petition is allowed in the abov

(DEEPA

J (LAPIT

king/reasoned :

Yes/No rtable :

Yes/No Page 2 of 2 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 →