MANU GUPTA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER

CWP/11980/2025

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. The petitioner argued that according to a notification from the Ministry of Finance dated 29.03.2022, such notices should only be issued through faceless assessment procedures. The court referenced two previous judgments, Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, which supported the petitioner's stance. Consequently, the court quashed the notice, allowing the respondents to reissue it if necessary, following the correct procedural guidelines.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 759273 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: URVASHI DHUGGA
• Assessee Lawyers: NITIN KANWAR
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income tax notice; Jurisdictional Assessing Officer
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"CWP-11980-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Manu Gupta Income Tax Officer, Ward CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. for the petitioner. (through video Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for the respondent DEEPAK SIBAL Challenge made through the instant pe dated 31.03.202 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 done because in terms of the notification Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice been issued only by way of faceless assessment. 2. In support of his afore submission, learned counsel petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court: i. CWP India and others, ii. CWP others 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.144 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11980 Date of Decision : Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhatinda/Haryana and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Nitin Kanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. (through video conferencing) Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for the respondent-Income Tax Department. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) Challenge made through the instant pe .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 could done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice been issued only by way of faceless assessment. In support of his afore submission, learned counsel petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court: CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu India and others, decided on 19.07.2024; and CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh others, decided on 29.07.2024. Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 11980-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.04.2025 …Petitioner 1, Bhatinda/Haryana and another …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Income Tax Department. Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice ) 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 dated 29.03.2022 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:- Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of decided on 19.07.2024; and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and VANDANA 2025.05.07 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11980-2025 3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co Benches of thi 4. In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu dated 31.03.2025 (Annexure P 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. April 30, 202 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in his through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co Benches of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra) .03.2025 (Annexure P-1), issued by the Jurisdictional Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition is allowed in the above terms. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 2025 ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Page 2 of 2 Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact is covered in his favour by the law laid down through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co-ordinate Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in (supra), the impugned notice ), issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against The petition is allowed in the above terms. DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.05.07 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "