PAVAN KHAITAN V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

CWP/14627/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a challenge by the petitioner, Pavan Khaitan, against a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The petitioner argued that the notice was improperly issued due to the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022, which established faceless assessment proceedings and designated the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) as the exclusive authority to issue such notices. The court referenced similar cases, particularly Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, where it had previously ruled on the procedural adherence required under the Act, 1961.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 746449 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: YOGESH PUTNEY; VAIBHAV GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: KARTIK BANSAL
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Jurisdiction; Notice under section 148
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 158 PAVAN KHAITAN ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged the notice dated (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1961’) and all consequential assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 20 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice under Section 1 Jurisdictional Assessing Officer although he has no jurisdiction to issue the same in view of the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022 which provides for faceless assessment proceedings and exclusive powers to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. He further submits that the coordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-14627 DATE OF DECISION: PAVAN KHAITAN Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing counsel Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate for Income Tax Department. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged the notice dated ) issued by respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1961’) and all consequential assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2018 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 has erroneously been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer although he has no jurisdiction to issue the same in view of the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022 which provides for faceless assessment proceedings and National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) exclusive powers to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. He further submits that the coordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 14627-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 29.05.2025 … Petitioner (s) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 ... Respondent(s) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL DEEPAK MANCHANDA , Advocate for the petitioner. Senior Standing counsel and for Income Tax Department. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 21.03.2025 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1961’) and all consequential 18-2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice 48 of the Act, 1961 has erroneously been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer although he has no jurisdiction to issue the same in view of the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022 which provides for faceless ss Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive powers to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. He further submits that the coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.15745-2024 - Vs. Union of India and others and connected matter, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 5 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1961’) and all consequential Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice 48 of the Act, 1961 has erroneously been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer although he has no jurisdiction to issue the same in view of the Notification dated 28/29.03.2022 which provides for faceless has exclusive powers to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. He further - SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.05.29 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14627-2025 decided on 19.07.2024 as well as CWP No.21509 of India and others allowed the writ petitions involving similar issue and liberty had been granted to the respondents therein to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 3. Therefore, the petition is disposed of in the judgment in the case of (supra) and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others (supra). Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 29.05.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 decided on 19.07.2024 as well as CWP No.21509 of India and others and other connected matters, decided on 29.07.2024, allowed the writ petitions involving similar issue and liberty had been granted to the respondents therein to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. Therefore, the petition is disposed of in the judgment in the case of Jatinder Singh Bhangu Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others (supra). Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) (DEEPAK MANCHANDA Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No -2- decided on 19.07.2024 as well as CWP No.21509-2023-Jasjit Singh Vs. Union and other connected matters, decided on 29.07.2024, had allowed the writ petitions involving similar issue and liberty had been granted to the respondents therein to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 Therefore, the petition is disposed of in the same terms as the Vs. Union of India and others Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others (supra). Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No Jasjit Singh Vs. Union had allowed the writ petitions involving similar issue and liberty had been granted to the respondents therein to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 same terms as the Vs. Union of India and others SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.05.29 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "