KARAN KUMAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/16566/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01087993202529 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 30.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, which were relied upon by the petitioner. The Court found that the notifications dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022, mandating faceless assessment, were not complied with by the issuance of the notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed. The respondent was granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Karan Kumar, challenged a notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible. This was based on notifications dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, mandating that such notices be issued via faceless assessment. The respondent, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

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 notifications dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment for such notices? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid because the aforementioned notifications stipulated that notices under Section 148 could only be issued through a faceless assessment mechanism. The petitioner relied on two High Court judgments: Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others (decided on 29.07.2024). Revenue's Contention: The respondent did not dispute the petitioner's submissions and acknowledged that the case was covered by the law laid down in the cited judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-16566-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

134

CWP-16566-2025

Date of Decision: 29.05.2025

KARAN KUMAR

.......PETITONER

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:- Mr. Vishal Mittal, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel with

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel

for the respondent.

*****

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1.

Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 30.03.2025 (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 notifications dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 (Annexures P-2 and P-3), 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 2025.05.30 22:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-16566-2025

-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 respondent 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 30.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 5.

The petition is allowed in the above terms.

[DEEPAK SIBAL]

JUDGE

[LAPITA BANERJI] 29.05.2025

JUDGE Prince

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No PRINCE SAINI 2025.05.30 22:29 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 →