FINVASIA SECURITIES PVT LTD vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22746/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01123754202507 August 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 12.06.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the law laid down in the High Court's previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. The Court found that the issuance of the notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was contrary to the mandate of faceless assessment as per the notification dated 29.03.2022. Consequently, the notice was quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed in terms of this relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Finvasia Securities Pvt. Ltd., challenged a notice dated 12.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible according to a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, mandating faceless assessment for such notices. The respondents, including the Central Board of Direct Taxes, 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 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is valid, when a notification mandates faceless assessment for such notices? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid because the notification dated 29.03.2022 stipulated that such notices could only be issued through a faceless assessment process. 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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.130

CWP-22746-2025 Date of decision : 07.08.2025

Finvasia Securities Pvt. Ltd.

.…. Petitioner Versus Central Board of Direct Taxes,

New Delhi and others

..... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Mr. Y. K. Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel, with Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Sanding Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel, for the Income Tax Department.

* * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1.

Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P-8) 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-9) 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. 3.

Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.08.13 18:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

CWP-22746-2025

[ 2 ]

case of the petitioner is covered in its favour by the law laid down through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of 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 12.06.2025 (Annexure P-8) 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

07.08.2025

[LAPITA BANERJI] shamsher

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.08.13 18:48 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 →