MANU MEHTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18482/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01102125202507 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 30.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the same court: Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. The reasoning was that the notification dated 29.03.2022, issued by the Ministry of Finance, mandated that such notices could only be issued through a faceless assessment process, and therefore, issuance by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was impermissible. The court quashed the impugned notice. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must adhere to the faceless assessment procedure as prescribed by government notifications, and any deviation renders the notice invalid. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manu Mehta, challenged a notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the respondents, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The 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, mandating faceless assessments for such notices. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in support of this argument. The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these prior judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is valid, considering the mandate of faceless assessment as per the notification dated 29.03.2022. The assessee argued that the impugned notice was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the faceless assessment procedure stipulated by the Ministry of Finance notification dated 29.03.2022. The assessee relied on the High Court's decisions in CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others). The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contention 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

CWP-18482-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

149

CWP-18482-2025

Date of Decision: 07.07.2025

MANU MEHTA

.......PETITONER

Versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:- Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel with

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Advocate

for the respondents.

*****

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 notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-2), 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 2025.07.08 22:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18482-2025

-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 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 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 respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 5.

The petition is allowed in the above terms.

[DEEPAK SIBAL]

JUDGE

[LAPITA BANERJI] 07.07.2025

JUDGE Prince

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No PRINCE SAINI 2025.07.08 22:22 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 →