FRIENDS ALLOYS vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17835/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01096547202503 July 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 06.06.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed in light of the law laid down in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). The reasoning was that the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these precedents. Consequently, the Court quashed the notice and granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Friends Alloys, challenged a notice dated 06.06.2025 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that this notice should have been issued through the faceless assessment procedure, as mandated by a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance. The petitioner argued that the impugned notice, not being issued via faceless assessment, was invalid. The respondents, the Central Board of Direct Taxes and others, did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by the law laid down in previous judgments of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 06.06.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid for not being issued through the faceless assessment procedure, as required by the notification dated 29.03.2022 (mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and the notification). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not through the faceless assessment mechanism, which is the prescribed procedure according to the notification dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner relied on two judgments of the High Court: CW-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) and CW-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India). Revenue's Contentions: The respondents conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the law laid down in the aforesaid two judgments of the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH

Sr. No.123 Friends Alloys Central Board of Di New Delhi and othe

CORAM : HON

HON

Present : Mr.D

Mr.V

DEEPAK SIBAL, J 1.

Chall 06.06.2025 (Annex 148 of the Income petitioner is that th Officer which coul 29.03.2022 (Annex the impugned notic 2.

In sup places reliance on th (i) CW of Ind (ii) CW and o 3.

Learn case of the petitio aforesaid two judgm H COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYA

Versus irect Taxes,

ers

'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIB 'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BAN ivya Suri, Advocate, for the petitio aibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel fo * * * * * J. (Oral) enge made through the instant xure P-4) issued to the petitioner b e Tax Act, 1961. The primary gro he impugned notice has been issued ld have not been done because in xure P-5) issued by the Ministry o e could have been issued only by w pport of his afore submission, le he following two judgments of this WP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Sin dia and others, decided on 19.07.20 WP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh others, decided on 29.07.2024. ned counsel for the respondents d oner is covered in its favour by ments rendered by two different c

ANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17835-2025 Date of decision : 03.07.2025

.…. Petitioner

..... Respondents BAL NERJI oner. or the Income Tax Department. petition is to the notice dated by the respondents under Section ound of challenge raised by the d by the Jurisdictional Assessing n terms of the notification dated of Finance, Government of India, way of faceless assessment. earned counsel for the petitioner s Court:- ngh Bhangu vs. Union 024; and h vs. Union of India does not dispute the fact that the the law laid down through the o-ordinate Benches of this Court SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.07.07 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

CWP-17835-2025

in the cases of Jatin 4.

In the Jatinder Singh Bha (Annexure P-4), iss liberty to the respon 5.

The p

03.07.2025 shamsher

[ 2 ]

nder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh e light of the above, in terms of th ngu and Jasjit Singh (supra), the im sued by the Jurisdictional Assessing ndents to proceed against the petitio petition is allowed in the above term

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

h (supra). he law laid down in the cases of mpugned notice dated 06.06.2025 g Officer, is hereby quashed with oner in accordance with law. ms. [DEEPAK SIBAL] JUDGE [LAPITA BANERJI] JUDGE o o SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.07.07 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →