Allowed

Navneet Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2 Chandigarh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CWP/15914/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The court held that the notice violated the mandatory requirement of faceless assessment under a government notification, relying on previous judgments of coordinate benches.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 04.03.2025 was quashed with liberty to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

Navneet Gupta Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

( Sr. No. 141 ) CWP No.15914 of 2025 Date of decision: 28.05.2025

Navneet Gupta

.....Petitioner

Versus

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

Present : Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents-Income Tax Department.

¶11

¶12

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. ( Oral )

¶13

(1) Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 04.03.2025 (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 could not have been done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-2), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment.

¶14

(2) In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court :-

¶15

SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.29 19:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

¶16

CWP No.15914 of 2025

¶17

[2]

¶18

(i) CWP No.15745 of 2024 - Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024.

¶19

(ii) CWP No.21509 of 2023 - Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024.

¶20

(3) Learned counsel for the respondent 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).

¶21

(4) In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra), the impugned notice dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶22

(5) The petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶23

(DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE

¶24

28.05.2025 ( LAPITA BANERJI ) sunil yadav JUDGE

¶25

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

¶26

SUNIL YADAV 2025.05.29 19:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

Navneet Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2 Chandigarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navneet Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2 Chandigarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases