KRISHNA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19849/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01108021202517 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 March 29, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was bad in law. The Court's decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the same High Court: Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In light of these precedents, the Court quashed the notice. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The primary reasoning was that the notice was not issued through the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, rendering it invalid. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 must adhere to the prescribed faceless assessment mechanism, failing which they are liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Krishna Gupta, challenged a notice dated March 29, 2025, issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary ground for challenge was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not through the faceless assessment procedure mandated by a notification dated March 29, 2022, issued by the Ministry of Finance. The petitioner argued that the notice could only have been issued via the faceless assessment mechanism. The respondents, the Income Tax Department, did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 29, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was not issued through the faceless assessment procedure as mandated by the notification dated March 29, 2022. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and the notification). Assessee's contention: The notice is bad in law as it was issued by the JAO and not through the prescribed faceless assessment procedure. Reliance was placed on the judgments in CW-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) and CW-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India). Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the facts and conceded that the case of the petitioner was covered by the law laid down in the cited judgments.

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.135 Krishna Gupta Income Tax Officer Chandigarh and oth

CORAM : HON

HON

Present : Mr. R

Mr. Y Mr. V for th

DEEPAK SIBAL, J 1.

Chall 29.03.2025 (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 H COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYA

Versus r Ward 5(5),

hers

'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIB 'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BAN Rohit Kaura, Advocate, for the petit Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Co Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Co he Income Tax Department. * * * * * J. (Oral) enge made through the instant xure P-1) issued to the petitioner b Tax Act, 1961. The primary gr he impugned notice has been issued ld have not been done because in xure P-2) 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 ner is covered in her favour by

ANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-19849-2025 Date of decision : 17.07.2025

.…. Petitioner

..... Respondents BAL NERJI tioner. ounsel, with unsel, petition is to the notice dated by the respondents under Section round 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 SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.07.19 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

CWP-19849-2025

aforesaid two judgm in the cases of Jatin 4.

In the Jatinder Singh Bha (Annexure P-1) issu liberty to the respon 5.

The p

17.07.2025 shamsher

[ 2 ]

ments rendered by two different c nder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh e light of the above, in terms of th ngu and Jasjit Singh (supra), the im ued 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

o-ordinate Benches of this Court h (supra). he law laid down in the cases of mpugned notice dated 29.03.2025 g Officer, is hereby quashed with oner in accordance with law. ms. [DEEPAK SIBAL] JUDGE [LAPITA BANERJI] JUDGE o o SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.07.19 09:29 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 →