Allowed¶21

Puneet Pannu v. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Chandigarh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2025CWP/18616/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-18616-2025 (O&M), Puneet Pannu vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh and others; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Deepak Sibal, J. (Oral) and Lapita Banerji, J.; Section 148 Income Tax Act 1961 notice quashed; faceless assessment; notification dated 29.03.2022 Ministry of Finance; Jurisdictional Assessing Officer; reliance on Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP-15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP-21509-2023); liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer quashed, with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. ¶21

Puneet Pannu Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Chandigarh… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

CWP-18616-2025 (O&M)

¶2

Sr. No.136

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-18616-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.07.2025

¶5

Puneet Pannu …Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh a n d others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

¶10

Present : M r. Kartik Bansal, Advocate f o r the petitioner.

¶11

M r. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stan d ing Counsel and M r. Vaibhav Gupta and M r. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsels f o r the Income Tax Department-r e spondents.

¶12

¶13

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

¶14

C hallenge made through the in s tant petition is to the notice dated 26.06.2 0 25 (Annexure P-1) issued to th e petitioner by the respondents under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1 961. The primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the impugned notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Offic e r which could have not been done because i n terms of the notification date d 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-2), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Govern m ent of India, the impugned notice could h a ve been issued only by way of f aceless assessment. 2. I n support of his afore submis s ion, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following tw o judgments of this Court:-

¶15

i. CW P -15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07. 2 024; and

¶16

VANDANA 2025.07.11 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

CWP-18616-2025 (O&M)

¶19

ii. CW P -21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others , decided on 29.07.2024.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respond e nts does not dispute the fact that the case o f the petitioner is covered in hi s favour by the law laid down through the a f oresaid two judgments rendere d by two different co-ordinate Benches of th i s Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh ( supra) . 4. I n the light of the above, in te r ms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh ( supra), the impugned notice dated 26.06.2 0 25 (Annexure P-1), issued b y the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is her e by quashed with liberty to the r espondents to proceed against the petitioner i n accordance with law.