SHAM SUNDER vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE 1

PDF · subscribers
CWP/25269/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01136790202528 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 17.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. The Court reasoned that the respondents themselves did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by the law laid down in the two prior judgments of the High Court, Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. These judgments established that notices under Section 148 should be issued through faceless assessment as per the relevant notification. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned notice. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sham Sunder, challenged a notice dated 17.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the respondents, the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1, Chandigarh, and others. The petitioner's primary contention was 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, Government of India, mandating faceless assessment for such notices. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in support of this argument. The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner's case was covered by these prior judgments.

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 dated 29.03.2022 mandates such notices to be issued via faceless assessment? Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice dated 17.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid because it contravened the mandate of faceless assessment stipulated by the Ministry of Finance notification dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner relied on the High Court's decisions in 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 contentions: The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's submissions and conceded that the case was covered by the 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.129 CWP-25269-2025 Date of decision: 28.08.2025 Sham Sunder ....Petitioner 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. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel for the respondents. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1. Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 17.03.2025 (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 (Annexure P-4), 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 JYOTI SHARMA 2025.08.29 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

CWP-25269-2025 -2- (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 17.03.2025 (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 28, 2025 Jyoti 1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JYOTI SHARMA 2025.08.29 16:07 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 →