BIRU SHARMA,SAFIDON, JIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JIND
Facts
The assessee challenged a re-assessment order for AY 2018-19, contending that the Section 148 notice, issued on 30.03.2022 by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. This was argued to contravene a Finance Ministry notification dated 29.03.2022 which mandated faceless assessments for such notices.
Held
The Tribunal, following its own precedent and jurisdictional High Court judgments, ruled that a Section 148 notice issued by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer after the 29.03.2022 notification was without jurisdiction. Consequently, the re-assessment order passed was deemed unsustainable and quashed.
Key Issues
Whether a re-assessment notice issued under Section 148 by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer is valid after the Finance Ministry's notification dated 29.03.2022, which mandated faceless assessments.
Sections Cited
Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ SMC’ BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,च�डीगढ़ �यायपीठ, च�डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ SMC’ BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1378/CHD/2025 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year. : 2018-19 Shri Biru Sharma, Vs The ITO, S/o Shri Bal Kishan, Ward-1, Purani Mandi, Jind. Safidon, Jind. �थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CHXPS1434E अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal, CA. Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 O R D E R PHYSICAL HEARING PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 28.02.2025 passed for assessment year 2017-18.
At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that since notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 30.03.2022 by jurisdictional AO instead
ITA No. 1378/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 2
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 ‘Shri Bagga Singh Vs DCIT Intl. Taxation (ITA No.231/CHD/2024) dated 13.05.2025.
The ld. Ld. CIT DR was unable to controvert this submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee.
I find that an identical issue was decided by this Bench in ITA No.1040/CHD/2024 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)
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 Ministry of Finance. Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment.
ITA No. 1378/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 3 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
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.”
Apart from this order, there are large number of
judgements at the end of the Jurisdictional High Court on this
issue.
Respectfully following the judgement, I quash the re-
assessment order because notice u/s 148A(1) was issued on
ITA No. 1378/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 4
30.03.2022 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.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 21.01.2026. Sd/-
(RAJPAL YADAV) VICE PRESIDENT
“Poonam” आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 3. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 4. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File 5.
सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar
