ANIL SHARMA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15105/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084048202523 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 31.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. The reasoning was that the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandated that such notices be issued through faceless assessment, and the issuance by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was contrary to this mandate. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued in contravention of mandatory procedural requirements, such as faceless assessment as stipulated by government notifications, are liable to be quashed. The Court quashed the impugned notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anil Sharma, challenged a notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Chandigarh. 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 respondents, represented by the Sr. Standing Counsel and Jr. Standing Counsel, did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by previous judgments of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is invalid in light of the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which contravenes the mandate of faceless assessment stipulated in the notification dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner relied on two High Court judgments: 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 did not dispute the petitioner's submission and conceded that the case was covered by the aforementioned 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 Sr. No.128 CWP-15105-2025 Date of decision: 23.05.2025 Anil Sharma ....Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel for the respondents. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1. Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 31.03.2025 (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 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:- (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.

JYOTI SHARMA 2025.05.26 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

CWP-15105-2025 -2- 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 the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra), the impugned notice dated 31.03.2025 (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) JUDGE May 23, 2025 Jyoti 1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JYOTI SHARMA 2025.05.26 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →