KARAN KUMAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/16569/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01087986202529 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 liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the same court, Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. The court found that the respondent did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these precedents. The reasoning was that the notifications dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 mandated faceless assessment for the issuance of such notices, and the notice in question was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, thus violating the prescribed procedure. The court quashed the notice with liberty to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No issue was 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. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible. This was because notifications dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 mandated that such notices could only be issued through faceless assessment procedures. The respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, did not dispute this fact. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana was considering this writ petition.

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, when notifications dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 mandate issuance through faceless assessment? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice dated 30.03.2025 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which contravened the mandatory faceless assessment procedure stipulated by the notifications dated 28.03.2022 and 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 respondent did not dispute the facts or the legal position as laid down in the 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-16569-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

135

CWP-16569-2025

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-16569-2025

-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 →