GURPARTAP SINGH MANN V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

CWP/12822/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a challenge to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to the petitioner, Gurpartap Singh Mann. The petitioner contested the validity of the notice, arguing that it should have been issued through a faceless assessment process as per the Ministry of Finance's notification dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner supported his argument by referencing two previous judgments by the High Court, which favored the use of faceless assessments in similar circumstances. The respondents did not dispute the applicability of these precedents. Consequently, the court quashed the notice and allowed the respondents to reissue it following the correct procedural guidelines.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 764944 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VAIBHAV GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJIV GUPTA
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Jurisdictional Assessing Officer; Notice Challenge
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Gurpartap Singh Mann Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Chandigarh and others CORAM:- Present: DEEPAK SIBAL 1. Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice 27.03.2025 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 co done because in terms of the notificatio 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 petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court: (i) CWP of India and others (ii) CWP and others IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurpartap Singh Mann Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Chandigarh and others - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for Mr.Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vaibhav Gupta, Jr.Standing Counsel, for the respondents. DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice .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 co done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P ), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. 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 of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024; and (ii) CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh and others, decided on 29.07.2024. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12822-2025 Date of Decision:- 06.05.2025 ...Petitioner Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Chandigarh and others Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL LAPITA BANERJI Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for Mr.Vaibhav Gupta, Jr.Standing Counsel, for the respondents. Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 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 n dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P- ), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court:- Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union , decided on 19.07.2024; and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India , decided on 29.07.2024. 2025 06.05.2025 ...Petitioner Respondents dated 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 uld have not been - ), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned submission, learned counsel for the SUDHIR KUMAR 2025.05.09 13:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12822-2025 [2] 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’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (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 27.03.2025 (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 06.05.2025 (LAPITA BANERJI) sd JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SUDHIR KUMAR 2025.05.09 13:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "