NECTAR LIFESCIENCES LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12047/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01066748202501 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. The Court noted that the respondent did not dispute the petitioner's submission that the case was covered by previous judgments of the High Court, specifically CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh). These judgments established that notices under Section 148 should be issued through faceless assessment as per the relevant notification. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned notice. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued in contravention of mandatory procedural requirements, such as the faceless assessment regime, is liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nectar Lifesciences Limited, challenged a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-21. 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 mandating faceless assessment for such notices. The respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, did not dispute this fact or the applicability of previous judgments on the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-21, is invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the mandate of faceless assessment as per the notification dated 29.03.2022? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is not permissible in light of the notification dated 29.03.2022, requiring such notices to be issued through faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on this Court's judgments in 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 fact that the petitioner's case was covered in their favour by the law laid down in the aforesaid two judgments.

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 132 CWP-12047-2025

Date of decision: 01.05.2025 NECTAR LIFESCIENCES LIMITED ...Petitioner VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Ms. Parnika Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel for the respondent. **** 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 2020-21. 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 2025.05.06 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-12047-2025 -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’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (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 2025.05.06 17:42 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 →