INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIRHIND vs. DEEPAK GOYAL, MANDI GOBINDGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1288/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 January 2026Bench: Punjab & Haryana High Court on the ground that the notice stood vitiated since it was issued by Jurisdictional AO instead of faceless AO as required under extant law. Since the first appeal was pending, the Hon'ble Court directed Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal in terms of decision of Hon'ble Court in the case of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (165 Taxmann.com 115; dated 19-07-2024). Pursuant to the said directions, Ld. CIT(A) applied the ratio of this decision and held that in terms of CBDT notific3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A), following the High Court's directions and a binding judicial precedent, found that the section 148 notice issued by the jurisdictional AO was invalid as per the CBDT notification dated 29-03-2022. Consequently, the notice was quashed, and the assessment order annulled. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, finding no reason to interfere.

What were the facts?

For AY 2018-19, the assessee's case was reopened, and a notice under section 148 was issued by the jurisdictional AO, leading to an addition. The assessee challenged this notice, contending it should have been issued by a faceless AO as per existing law. The High Court directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal based on its own precedent on this issue.

What were the issues?

Whether a notice issued under section 148 by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer for reopening an assessment is valid when a faceless Assessing Officer is required as per CBDT notifications and judicial precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

O R D E R

1.

Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 26-08-2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 07-03-2024. Having heard Ld. Sr. DR and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.

2.

It emerges that the case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) on 06-04-2022 and while framing the assessment, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.41,18,719/-. The assessee filed further appeal against the same and also challenged the notice before Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on the ground that the notice stood vitiated since it was issued by Jurisdictional AO instead of faceless AO as required under extant law. Since the first appeal was pending, the Hon’ble Court directed Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal in terms of decision of Hon’ble Court in the case of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (165 Taxmann.com 115; dated 19-07-2024). Pursuant to the said directions, Ld. CIT(A) applied the ratio of this decision and held that in terms of CBDT notification dated 29-03-2022, this notice was required to be issued by faceless AO. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 was quashed and the consequential assessment order was annulled. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before Tribunal.

3.

It is crystal clear that the impugned legal issue stood decided in assessee’s favor by the decision of jurisdictional High Court and Ld. CIT(A) has followed a binding judicial precedent. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere in the same.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →