ACE EARTH MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED AY 2019 TO 20 vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
CWP/20171/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109894202518 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 31.08.2024, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in the previously decided cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh by coordinate benches of the same court. The reasoning was that the notifications dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 mandated a faceless assessment procedure, which the issuance of the notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer contravened. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 must adhere to the prescribed faceless assessment procedures as per government notifications. The court quashed the impugned notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ace Earth Management Solutions Private Limited, challenged a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Chandigarh. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible. This was based on notifications dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022, which mandated that such notices be issued through a faceless assessment procedure. The respondents, represented by the Revenue, did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by previous judgments of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is valid in light of the faceless assessment procedure mandated by notifications dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and relevant notifications). Assessee's contention: The notice is invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the faceless assessment procedure stipulated by the Ministry of Finance notifications. The assessee relied on two High Court judgments: CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others). Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the applicability of the judgments cited by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-20171-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

115

CWP-20171-2025

Date of Decision: 18.07.2025

ACE EARTH MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED.......PETITONER

Versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:- Mr. Rochak Singla, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel with

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 31.08.2024 (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 notifications dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 (Annexures P-3 and P-4), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. PRINCE SAINI 2025.07.21 05:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-20171-2025

-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. 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 31.08.2024 (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] 18.07.2025

JUDGE Prince

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No PRINCE SAINI 2025.07.21 05:24 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 →