SHUBHAM GUPTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23966/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01130860202520 August 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the petition. The Court held that in light of the law laid down in the cases of *Jatinder Singh Bhangu* and *Jasjit Singh* (supra), the impugned notice dated 03.04.2024, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. Consequently, the Court quashed the notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must adhere to the prescribed faceless assessment procedures, and deviations render such notices liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shubham Gupta, challenged a notice dated 03.04.2024 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (respondent) 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 it should have been issued by way of faceless assessment as per a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in support of this contention. The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 03.04.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is invalid because it should have been issued through a faceless assessment mechanism as per the notification dated 29.03.2022? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was contrary to the mandate of faceless assessment prescribed by the notification dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner relied on the judgments in *Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India* (WP-15745-2024) and *Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India* (WP-21509-2023) to support this argument. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the fact that the petitioner's case was covered by 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.137 Shubham Gupta Deputy Commissio Chandigarh and oth

CORAM : HON

HON

Present : Mr. R

Mr. Y

Mr. V

Mr. V

for th

DEEPAK SIBAL, J 1.

Chall 03.04.2024 (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 H COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYA

Versus ner of Income Tax,

hers

'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIB 'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BAN Rohit Kaura, Advocate, for the petit Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Co Vidul Kapur, Junior Standing Coun 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

ANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-23966-2025 Date of decision : 20.08.2025

.…. Petitioner

..... Respondents BAL NERJI tioner. ounsel, with sel, and 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 SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.08.22 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

CWP-23966-2025

case of the petitio 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

20.08.2025 shamsher

[ 2 ] oner is covered in his favour by 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

the law laid down through the o-ordinate Benches of this Court h (supra). he law laid down in the cases of mpugned notice dated 03.04.2024 g Officer, is hereby quashed with oner in accordance with law. ms. [DEEPAK SIBAL] JUDGE [LAPITA BANERJI] JUDGE o o SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.08.22 09:29 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 →