MANISH GUPTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19535/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01106926202515 July 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the petition in the same terms as its previous judgments in CWP No.15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No.2150-2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others), decided on 19.07.2024 and 29.07.2024 respectively. In those cases, the writ petitions involving similar issues were allowed, and the respondents were granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The principle applied is that notices under Section 148 should adhere to the prescribed faceless assessment procedures, and if not, the assessee is entitled to challenge them and seek appropriate directions for compliance.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manish Gupta, challenged a notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the notice was erroneously issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who lacked the authority to do so, especially in light of the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022 which mandates that such proceedings be conducted through the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner relied on a coordinate bench's decision in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), as per the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148 of the Act and the aforementioned Notification). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice was erroneously issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who lacked the jurisdiction to do so, given the mandate for faceless assessment proceedings under the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022. The petitioner relied on the decision in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH C 127

MANISH GUPT

ASSISTANT CO

CORAM: HON

HON

Present: Mr.

Mr. Ms. Ms.

Mr.

Mr.

Mr.

for I

ANUPINDER S

The (Annexure P-1) i Act, 1961 (here assessment proce 2.

Lear under Section 1 Jurisdictional As in view of the N assessment proce exclusive powers submits that the Jatinder Singh B COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARY

CWP-19535-202

DATE OF DEC TA

Versus OMMISSIONER OF INCOME

N’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPI N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate Ubhai Bharti Gupta, Advocate Mamta Gupta, Advocate and Uma Bharti, Advocate for the p

Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Vidul Kapoor, Advocate, Junior Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate, Junio Income Tax. SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) petitioner has challenged issued by respondent No.1 under inafter referred to as the ‘Act eedings for Assessment Year 202 rned counsel for the petitioner su 148 of the Act, 1961 has err sessing Officer although he has Notification dated 28/29.03.202 eedings and National Faceless A s to issue notice under Section 1 e coordinate Bench of this Co Bhangu Vs. Union of India and YANA AT CHANDIGARH 25

CISION: 15.07.2025

… Petitioner (s) E TAX AND OTHERS

... Respondent(s) INDER SINGH GREWAL AK MANCHANDA

etitioner. g counsel, r Standing counsel or Standing counsel

the notice dated 30.03.2025 r Section 148 of the Income Tax t, 1961’) and all consequential 20-2021. ubmits that the impugned notice roneously been issued by the no jurisdiction to issue the same 22 which provides for faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has 148 of the Act, 1961. He further ourt in CWP No.15745-2024 - d others and connected matter,

5 x l e e e s s r - SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.15 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-19535-202

decided on 19.07 of India and ot allowed the writ the respondents t and proceed acco 3.

Ther judgment in the c (supra) and Jasj

Pend

15.07.2025 SwarnjitS

Wheth

Wheth 25

7.2024 as well as CWP No.2150 hers and other connected matte petitions involving similar issue therein to follow the procedure ordingly, if so advised. refore, the petition is disposed case of Jatinder Singh Bhangu it Singh Vs. Union of India and ding application(s), if any, also s

(ANUPIN

(DE

her speaking/reasoned : Yes / her reportable

: Yes /

-2- 09-2023-Jasjit Singh Vs. Union ers, decided on 29.07.2024, had e and liberty had been granted to laid down under the Act, 1961 d of in the same terms as the Vs. Union of India and others d others (supra). stands disposed of. NDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE EEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE No No

n d o

e s SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.15 16:29 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 →