IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126 CWP-22085-2025 Date of Decision: 01.08.2025 SANDHLI FILM STUDIO .......Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present:- Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel, with Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsel, and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel, for respondent-Income Tax Department. ***** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1. Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 17.01.2024 (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-3), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. 2. In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court:- i. CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024; and PRINCE SAINI 2025.08.05 02:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22085-2025 -2- ii. CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. 3. 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). 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 17.01.2024 (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. 5. The petition is allowed in the above terms. [DEEPAK SIBAL] JUDGE [LAPITA BANERJI] 01.08.2025 JUDGE PRINCE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No PRINCE SAINI 2025.08.05 02:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document