GAGANJYOT SINGH RANDHAWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28850/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01155618202525 September 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned notice dated 05.04.2024, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. This decision was based on the reasoning that the notice was issued contrary to the mandatory faceless assessment procedure prescribed by the Ministry of Finance notification dated 29.03.2022. The Tribunal relied on its previous coordinate bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. Consequently, the notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gaganjyot Singh Randhawa, challenged a notice dated 05.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh. The petitioner contended 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, such notices could only be issued through a faceless assessment procedure. The respondents' counsel did not dispute that the petitioner's 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 dated 29.03.2022 mandates issuance through a faceless assessment procedure? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid because it contravened the mandatory faceless assessment procedure stipulated by the Ministry of Finance notification dated 29.03.2022. 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 respondents' counsel did not dispute the petitioner's submissions and acknowledged that the case was covered by the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.140 CWP-28850-2025 Date of decision: 25.09.2025 Gaganjyot Singh Randhawa ....Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate (through VC) for the petitioner. Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsel, for the respondents. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1. The challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 05.04.2024 (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 (ii) CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. JYOTI SHARMA 2025.09.26 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

CWP-28850-2025 -2- 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 the cases of 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 05.04.2024 (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 disposed in the above terms. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE September 25, 2025 Jyoti 1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JYOTI SHARMA 2025.09.26 15:29 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 →