KAMINI DEVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19721/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01107629202516 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 27.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the principle established in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, which were relied upon by the petitioner. The Court found that the notification mandating faceless assessment for such notices had not been followed. Consequently, the notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The Court did not leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kamini Devi, challenged a notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh. The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas a notification dated 29.03.2022 mandated that such notices be issued through a faceless assessment procedure. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Department, did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by previous judgments of the High Court.

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 a notification mandates issuance through faceless assessment? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice dated 27.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This was based on the Ministry of Finance notification dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that such notices should be issued via faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two High Court judgments: CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India). Revenue's contention: The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's submission 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.129 CWP-19721-2025 Date of decision: 16.07.2025 Kamini Devi ....Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Ms. Ubhai Bharti Gupta, Advocate (through VC), for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsel, for the respondents. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1. Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 27.03.2025 (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 have not 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 notice 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:- (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.

JYOTI SHARMA 2025.07.18 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

CWP-19721-2025 -2- 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 the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra), the impugned notice dated 27.03.2025 (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) JUDGE July 16, 2025 Jyoti 1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JYOTI SHARMA 2025.07.18 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 →