GAGANDEEP SINGH LUTHRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/37254/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01198458202512 December 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 31.03.2025, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This decision was based on the law laid down in two previous judgments of the same court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. The reasoning was that the notification dated 29.03.2022 mandated that notices under Section 148 should be issued through faceless assessment, and the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was not authorized to issue such a notice. Consequently, the notice was quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gagandeep Singh Luthra, challenged a notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer and others. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was impermissible as per a notification dated 29.03.2022 from the Ministry of Finance, requiring such notices to be issued via faceless assessment. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

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 faceless assessment? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid because it should have been issued through faceless assessment as per the Ministry of Finance notification. The petitioner relied on two High Court judgments: CWP-15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India) and CWP-21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India). Revenue's contention: The respondents, represented by Sr. Standing Counsel and Jr. Standing Counsels, did not dispute that the petitioner's 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.110 CWP-37254-2025 Date of decision: 12.12.2025 Gagandeep Singh Luthra ....Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsel Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel for the respondents. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1. The challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 31.03.2025 (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-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 2025.12.15 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

CWP-37254-2025 -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 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 31.03.2025 (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 disposed in the above terms. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE December 12, 2025 Jyoti 1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JYOTI SHARMA 2025.12.15 12:42 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 →