Allowed

Rajesh Saini v. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) Chandigarh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CWP/19744/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and 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 was invalid as it contravened the requirement for faceless assessment mandated by a Ministry of Finance notification.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 01.04.2025 is quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

Rajesh Saini Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) Chandigarh… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Sr. No.131

¶3

CWP-19744-2025 Date of decision: 16.07.2025

Rajesh Saini

....Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Chandigarh and others ....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, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsel, for the respondents.

¶11

* * *

¶12

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

¶13

Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 01.04.2025 (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 have not 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

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

¶15

(i) CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union

¶16

of India and others , decided on 19.07.2024; and

¶17

(ii) CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India

¶18

and others , decided on 29.07.2024.

¶19

JYOTI SHARMA 2025.07.18 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶20

CWP-19744-2025 -2-

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents 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 and Jasjit Singh ( supra ).

¶22

In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in the

¶23

cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh ( supra ), the impugned notice dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶24

The petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶25

(DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE

¶26

(LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE

¶27

July 16, 2025

¶28

Jyoti 1

¶29

Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable

¶30

Yes/No Yes/No

¶31

JYOTI SHARMA 2025.07.18 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Rajesh Saini v. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) Chandigarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Saini v. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1) 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases