KULDEEP KRISHAN vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17953/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01094316202504 July 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 liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the established law laid down in two previous judgments of the same court: Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India. The court found that the revenue did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these precedents. The reasoning was that the notice was issued in a faceless manner, which was contrary to the notification dated 29.03.2022, and therefore, invalid. The court quashed the notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kuldeep Krish, challenged a notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The primary contention was that the notice was issued in a faceless manner, contrary to the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance, which stipulated that such notices could only be issued by the jurisdictional officer. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in support of this argument. The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these prior decisions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued in a faceless manner, contrary to the notification dated 29.03.2022, which mandates issuance by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the notification dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contentions: The impugned notice is liable to be quashed as it was issued in a faceless manner, which is impermissible as per the notification dated 29.03.2022. Reliance was placed on Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India (CWP-15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India (CWP-21509-2023). Revenue's contentions: The revenue conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the aforesaid two judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-17953-2

IN THE Kuldeep Krish Central Board

CORAM : H

Present : M

M fo

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 31.03.20 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.110

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1795 Date of De

han

Versus of Direct Taxes and others

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate and Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mittal, Advoc or the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stand 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 53-2025 (O&M) ecision : 04.07.2025

…Petitioner

…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI cate, ding 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 er which could have not been d 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-3), 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 2025.07.08 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17953-2

ii. CWP other 3.

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

In Jatinder Sing dated 31.03.20 Officer, is here the petitioner i 5.

July 04, 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 2025.07.08 09:26 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 →