PARDAMAN SINGH ,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - RAJPURA , RAJPURA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 901/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 January 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following its own precedent and a jurisdictional High Court judgment, held that a notice issued under Section 148 or 148A(1) by a jurisdictional AO after the 29.03.2022 notification mandating faceless assessments is without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order based on such an invalid notice.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 2018-19. The core contention was that the notice issued under Section 148 on 31.03.2022 was invalid because it was issued by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, contrary to the Finance Ministry's notification dated 29.03.2022.

What were the issues?

Validity of reassessment notice issued by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer after the Notification mandating faceless assessments on 29.03.2022.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr.DR
Hearing: 12.11.2026Pronounced: 27.01.2026

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 24.07.2024 passed in assessment year 2018-19.

2. Though the assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal, but at the very outset, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that since notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2022 A.Y.2018-19 2 by jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO, as contemplated in the Notification issued by the Finance Ministry dated 29.03.2022, thus, according to him, the impugned assessment order is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon order of the ITAT in the case of ‘The Bibipur Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Limited Vs ITO’ (ITA No.213/Chandi/2025) dated 27.08.2025.

3. The ld. Ld. CIT DR was unable to controvert this submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee.

4. We find that an identical issue was decided by this Bench in with C.O. No.41/CHD/2024 dated 13.05.2025. The finding of the Tribunal reads as under: “6. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Admittedly, notice under Section 148 was issued after the Notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India on 29.03.2022. The notice under Section 148 has been issued on 29.03.2023 i.e. almost one year from the Notification. Thus, facts of other year are squarely applicable. The issue in dispute is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court which read as under : “DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1.

Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 01.03.2025 (Annexure P-l) issued to the petitioner by the respondents tinder 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 not have been done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-2), issued by the A.Y.2018-19 3 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.

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’s case (supra). .

4.

In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's and Jasjit Singh's cases (supra) the impugned notice dated 01.03.2025 (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] 30.04.2025 JUDGE

7. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, we allow the ground of appeal of Cross Objection and hold that notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act in assessment year 2019-20 is bad in the eyes of law. It was without jurisdiction. Accordingly, re-assessment order is quashed.”

5.

Apart from this order, there are large number of judgements at the end of the Jurisdictional High Court on this issue.

ITA No.901/CHD/2024 A.Y.2018-19 4

6.

Respectfully following the judgement, we quash the re- assessment order because notice u/s 148A(1) was issued on 31.03.2022 as observed by the AO in the assessment order. Accordingly, this plea of the assessee is allowed and re-assessment order is quashed. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →