GURMEET KHANDELWAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23126/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01111688202511 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 04.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the fact that the respondents did not dispute the applicability of the law laid down by two coordinate benches of the same High Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. In those cases, similar notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers were quashed in light of the notification mandating faceless assessment. The reasoning was that the respondents conceded that the present case was covered by the precedent. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued in contravention of the faceless assessment procedure, as mandated by government notifications, are invalid. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gurmeet Khandelwal, challenged a notice dated 04.03.2025 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (respondent) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible. This was based on a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, mandating that such notices be issued through a faceless assessment process. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the issuance of the notice and the subsequent filing of the writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 04.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is invalid in light of the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless assessment. (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the mandate of faceless assessment introduced by the notification dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner relied on two judgments of the High Court: CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024, and CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. Revenue's contention: The respondents, through their counsel, did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered in his favour by the law laid down in the two aforementioned judgments of the High Court.

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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.149 CWP-23126-2025 Date of decision: 11.08.2025 Gurmeet Khandelwal ....Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle I and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Puneet Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel 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 04.03.2025 (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 have not been done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022, 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 JYOTI SHARMA 2025.08.18 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

CWP-23126-2025 -2- 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 the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra), the impugned notice dated 04.03.2025 (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) JUDGE August 11, 2025 Jyoti 1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JYOTI SHARMA 2025.08.18 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 →