KARAN CHOPRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13973/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01077113202515 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 case of the petitioner was covered by the two previous judgments rendered by co-ordinate Benches of the Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). Consequently, in terms of the law laid down in those judgments, the impugned notice dated 27.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was quashed. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in the above terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Karan Chopra, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh. The challenge was primarily based on the contention that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer who could not have issued it, as it was done in terms of a notification dated 29.03.2022, implying it was part of a faceless assessment scheme. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in support of their submission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in contravention of the notification dated 29.03.2022, pertaining to faceless assessment. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer who lacked the authority to do so, given the notification dated 29.03.2022, which mandated faceless assessment. They relied on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others (CWP-21509-2023). Revenue's Contention: The respondents did not dispute the facts and conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the aforesaid two judgments rendered by the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-13973-2

IN THE Karan Chopra Income Tax O

CORAM : H

Present : M

M M

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 27.03.20 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.121

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1397 Date of De

… Versus fficer, ITO Ward 2(1), Chandiga

… HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. B.M.Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate, 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-1) 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 73-2025 (O&M) ecision : 15.05.2025

…Petitioner

arh and others

…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI 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-2), 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-13973-2

ii. CWP other 3.

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

In Jatinder Sing dated 27.03.20 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-1), 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 →