HARPAL SINGH vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13848/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01077121202515 May 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It held that the impugned notice dated March 30, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the principle laid down in the High Court's own previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). The reasoning was that the notice was issued in contravention of the faceless assessment procedure mandated by the notification dated March 29, 2022. The Court quashed the notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harpal Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 30, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas, in terms of a notification dated March 29, 2022, such notices should have been issued through a faceless assessment system. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court in support of this argument. The respondents, the Income Tax Department, did not dispute the facts and conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the aforementioned judgments.

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, considering the notification dated March 29, 2022, mandating faceless assessment procedures? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice was issued contrary to the established procedure of faceless assessment as per the notification dated March 29, 2022. The petitioner relied on the High Court's decisions in CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India) which held similar notices issued by jurisdictional officers to be invalid. Revenue's Contentions: The respondents did not dispute the facts and conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the two 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

CWP-13848-2

IN THE Harpal Singh Central Board

CORAM : H

Present : M

M M

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 30.03.20 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.117

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1384 Date of De

… Versus of Direct Taxes and others

… HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate and Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mittal, Advoc or the petitioner. Mr.Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing C Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing C or the Income Tax Department-re *** BAL, J. (Oral)

Challenge made through the ins 025 (Annexure P-3) 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 48-2025 (O&M) ecision : 15.05.2025

…Petitioner

…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI cate, Counsel and Counsel, espondents. stant petition is to the notice e petitioner by the respondents 1961. The primary ground of e impugned notice has been r which could have not been d 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-6), 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 2025.05.16 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13848-2

ii. CWP other 3.

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

In Jatinder Sing dated 30.03.20 Officer, is here the petitioner i 5.

May 15, 2025 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 ( 025 (Annexure P-3), 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 y the Jurisdictional Assessing respondents to proceed against ve terms. AK SIBAL) JUDGE

TA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.05.16 17:33 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 →