SPRING DALE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
CWP/25291/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01136217202528 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 11.06.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. The Court found that the issuance of such a notice was contrary to the mandate of the notification dated 29.03.2022, which required faceless assessment. The Court relied on its own previous decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, which established this principle. Consequently, the notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, implying they could issue a fresh notice if permissible under the prevailing procedures. No other issues were decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Spring Dale Educational Society, challenged a notice dated 11.06.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle 1, Chandigarh, 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 the petitioner, a notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Ministry of Finance mandated that such notices could only be issued through a faceless assessment procedure. The respondent revenue did not dispute that the 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 issuance through faceless assessment? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice dated 11.06.2025 was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. This action contravened the notification dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that such notices must be issued via faceless assessment. The petitioner relied on two High Court judgments: 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 respondent revenue did not dispute the petitioner's submissions and conceded that the case was covered by the law laid down in 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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.131 CWP-25291-2025 Date of decision: 28.08.2025 Spring Dale Educational Society, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar ....Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Circle 1, Chandigarh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Ms. Parnika Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Counsel Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel for the respondent. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1. Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 11.06.2025 (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-2), 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-25291-2025 -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 11.06.2025 (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 →