SUNAINA KUMARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/20343/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01111732202521 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 27, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. The Court relied on its previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In these judgments, the Court had held that notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be issued in accordance with the faceless assessment procedure as mandated by the notification dated March 29, 2022. Since the revenue did not contest that the present case was covered by these precedents, the Court quashed the notice. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sunaina Kumari, challenged a notice dated March 27, 2025, issued by the Income Tax Officer 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, whereas, according to a notification dated March 29, 2022, from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, such notices could only be issued through a faceless assessment procedure. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in support of her submission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated March 27, 2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid, considering the notification dated March 29, 2022, mandating faceless assessment procedures for such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the notification dated March 29, 2022). Assessee's contention: The notice is invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not through the faceless assessment procedure prescribed by the notification dated March 29, 2022. 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 fact that the case of the petitioner was covered by the law laid down in the aforesaid two 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.143 Sunaina Kumari Income Tax Officer

CORAM : HON

HON

Present : Mr. V

Mr. Y Mr. V for th

DEEPAK SIBAL, J 1.

Chall 27.03.2025 (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, Chandigarh and others 'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIB 'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BAN Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate, for 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-20343-2025 Date of decision : 21.07.2025

.…. Petitioner

..... Respondents BAL NERJI r the petitioner (through V.C.). 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 2025.07.28 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

CWP-20343-2025

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

21.07.2025 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 27.03.2025 g Officer, is hereby quashed with oner in accordance with law. ms. [DEEPAK SIBAL] JUDGE [LAPITA BANERJI] JUDGE o o SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.07.28 18:39 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 →