RAKESH KUMAR KASHYAP vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22888/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01123745202507 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 22.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the same court, Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. The court found that the respondents did not dispute that these judgments applied to the present case. Consequently, the notice was quashed with liberty granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Kashyap, challenged a notice dated 22.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1, Chandigarh, and others. 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 from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which mandated that such notices could only be issued through faceless assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 22.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is invalid in light of the notifications dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the provisions of the notifications dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022, requiring such notices to be issued through faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court: 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 respondents, through their counsel, did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by the law laid down in the aforementioned 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-22888-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

140

CWP-22888-2025

Date of Decision: 07.08.2025

RAKESH KUMAR KASHYAP

.......PETITONER

Versus

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, 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 22.03.2025 (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 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 notices could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. PRINCE SAINI 2025.08.08 04:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-22888-2025

-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 22.03.2025 (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] 07.08.2025

JUDGE Prince

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No PRINCE SAINI 2025.08.08 04:41 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 →