NECTAR LIFESCIENCES LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12045/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01066863202501 May 2025Bench: 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 dated 31.08.2024, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in the judgments of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, which were relied upon by the petitioner. The Court found that the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandated faceless assessment for such notices, and the issuance by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was contrary to this mandate. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The Court did not leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nectar Life Sciences Limited, challenged a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner's primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible according to a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. This notification mandated that such notices be issued through faceless assessment. The respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, did not dispute this fact.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2018-19, is invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of through faceless assessment, as stipulated by the notification dated 29.03.2022? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice is invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the mandatory faceless assessment procedure prescribed by the notification dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner relied on two judgments of the High Court: CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others). Revenue's contention: The respondent did not dispute the facts or the applicability of the law laid down in the judgments cited by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 131 CWP-12045-2025

Date of decision: 01.05.2025 NECTAR LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED ...Petitioner VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel for the respondents. **** DEEPAK SIBAL

, J.(ORAL) 1. Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 31.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) issued to the petitioner by the respondents under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2018-19. The primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the impugned notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer which could have not been done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-2), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. 2. In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court:- NISHA 2025.05.03 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12045-2025 -2- (i) CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024; and (ii) CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in his favour by the law laid down through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). 4. In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra), the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 (Annexure P-1), issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. The petition is allowed in the above terms. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 01.05.2025

Nisha Yadav

Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NISHA 2025.05.03 14:12 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 →