KARAN CHOPRA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

CWP/13945/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the challenge to notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner contested the validity of these notices, arguing that they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer contrary to the faceless assessment procedure required by a specific government notification. The court examined precedents set by earlier judgments which supported the petitioner's stance, leading to the quashing of the notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 671326 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024, CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VAIBHAV GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT KAURA
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Jurisdictional Assessing Officer; Income tax notice
• Section: 147; 148; 156

Judgement Text

"CWP-13945-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Karan Chopra Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 2 (1), Chandigarh and CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Present : Mr. Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel, for the Income Tax Department. DEEPAK SIBAL Challenge in the prese issued under Section 148 of the Income order dated 30 demand dated 30 penalty show cause notice dated 31.03.2025, for AY 2020 2. The the impugned notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer which could have not been done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. 3. In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court: i) CWP of India and others 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13945 Date of Decision : Versus Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 2 (1), Chandigarh and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. B.M.Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel, for the Income Tax Department. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 14 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 30.03.2025 issued under Section 147 of the demand dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 156 of the nalty show cause notice dated 31.03.2025, for AY 2020 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 done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-3), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court: ) CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024; and Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 13945-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.05.2025 …Petitioner Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 2 (1), Chandigarh and others …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel, nt petition is to notice dated 14.03.2024 Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’); issued under Section 147 of the 1961 Act; notice of er Section 156 of the 1961 Act, and nalty show cause notice dated 31.03.2025, for AY 2020-2021. 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 done because in terms of the notification dated stry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless In support of his afore 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 VANDANA 2025.05.16 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13945-2025 (O&M) ii) CWP others 4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in its favour by the law laid down through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co this Court in Jatinder Singh Bh 5. In the light of the above, the of Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s 19.07.2024 and 29.07.2024, respectively. 8. All the pending application May 15, 2025 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : 2025 (O&M) ii) CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh others, decided on 29.07.2024. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in its favour by the law laid down through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s In the light of the above, the present Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s 19.07.2024 and 29.07.2024, respectively. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 5 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Page 2 of 2 Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in its favour by the law laid down through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co-ordinate Benches of Jasjit Singh’s case (supra). present petition is allowed in terms Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra), decided on s, if any, also stand disposed of. DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.05.16 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "