NEERAJ KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the notice dated 29.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for the assessment year 2020-2021, was invalid. The Court's reasoning was based on its previous decisions in identical matters, specifically CWP No. 15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No. 21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others). In those cases, the Court had thoroughly analyzed the implications of the introduction of faceless assessment under Section 151A read with Section 144B of the Act and concluded that a JAO could not issue such notices. The ratio decidendi is that post-faceless assessment regime, the issuance of Section 148 notices by the JAO is procedurally flawed. Consequently, the petition was disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgments, quashing the impugned notice and granting liberty to the Revenue to follow the prescribed procedure. No issue was left undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Neeraj Kumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, seeking to quash a notice dated 29.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The notice pertained to the assessment year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after the introduction of faceless assessment provisions under Section 151A read with Section 144B of the Act. The Revenue, represented by Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel, did not dispute the factual position presented by the petitioner.
What were the issues?
1. Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is invalid post the introduction of faceless assessment provisions under Section 151A read with Section 144B of the Act? (Question of law) The assessee contended that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO, which is impermissible after the implementation of faceless assessment. The assessee relied on two coordinate bench judgments of the High Court: CWP No. 15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024) and CWP No. 21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024). The Revenue did not present any arguments against this contention.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP No.4867 of 2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4867 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision :20.02.2025 Neeraj Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hissar and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present : Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ARUN PALLI, J.
(Oral)
: A certiorari is prayed for, to quash the impugned notice dated 29.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘1961 Act’), and all consequential proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter in issue is squarely covered by an order and judgment, rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 15745-2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024), as also in CWP No. 21509-2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024). Served with the advance copy of the petition, Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents, is present in Court (through virtual mode). The factual position, as set out above, is not disputed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. MANOJ KUMAR 2025.02.21 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CWP No.4867 of 2025 (O&M) 2
As indicated earlier, the petitioner has assailed the notice dated 29.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the 1961 Act, as regards the assessment year 2020-2021. For, post introduction of the concept of faceless assessment under Section 151A read with Section 144B of the 1961 Act, notice under Section 148 of the 1961 Act cannot be issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). An identical issue was examined by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra), and upon thorough analysis of the matter, the notice(s) issued by the JAO were quashed and the petition(s) filed by the assessee(s) were allowed. But, with liberty to the respondent/Revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the 1961 Act and proceed accordingly. In the wake of the above, and as prayed by learned counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of, in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA) JUDGE 20.02.2025 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2025.02.21 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
More judgments on Section 148
- Bha Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New DelhiITA 5208/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2026AY 2015-16
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Deepak Kumar Daiya vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 4 Nov 2026
- Pawan Kumar Rajgaria vs. State Of West BengalCalcutta · 4 Nov 2026
- Mohammed Fazil vs. State Of ChhattisgarhChhattisgarh · 4 Nov 2026
- Tvl. Devaerakkam Mercy Mary vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 4 Nov 2026
- Procter And Gamble Health LTD vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 4 Nov 2026