IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 135 CWP-12079-2025 Date of decision: 01.05.2025 NECTAR LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED ...Petitioner VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel for the respondent. **** DEEPAK SIBAL , J.(ORAL) 1. Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 31.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) issued to the petitioner by the respondents under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2019-20. 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. 2. In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court:- NISHA 2025.05.03 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12079-2025 -2- (i) CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024; and (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 31.08.2024 (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) JUDGE 01.05.2025 Nisha Yadav Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NISHA 2025.05.03 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document