RADHEY SHAM BANSAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13683/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01076415202514 May 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana, in light of the law laid down in the cited judgments of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, held that the impugned notice dated 27.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. The Court quashed the notice. The reasoning was that the notification dated 29.03.2022, which mandated faceless assessment, had not been followed. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must adhere to the faceless assessment procedure as prescribed by the relevant government notifications. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, implying they could issue a fresh notice following the correct procedure. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Radhey Sham Bansal, challenged a notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer and others. The 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, mandating faceless assessment for such notices. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in support of this argument. The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is valid, given the mandate for faceless assessment under the notification dated 29.03.2022? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice dated 27.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This was based on the Ministry of Finance's notification dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that such notices could only be issued through a faceless assessment procedure. The petitioner relied on the High Court's decisions 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 respondents, through their counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's submission and conceded that the case was covered in the petitioner's favour 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-13681-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

125

CWP-13681-2025

Date of Decision: 14.05.2025

RADHEY SHAM BANSAL

.......PETITONER

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:- Ms. Mamta Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioner. (Through Video Conferencing)

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel with

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel

for Income Tax Dept.

*****

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1.

Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued to the petitioner by the respondents under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the impugned notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer which could not have 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 notices 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:- PRINCE SAINI 2025.05.15 05:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13681-2025

-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 27.03.2025 (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] 14.05.2025

JUDGE Prince

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No PRINCE SAINI 2025.05.15 05:21 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 →