[133] Baljinder Singh Union of India and others Coram : Present: DEEPAK SIBAL [1] 29.03.2023 Act, 1961 (for short “1961 Act”); (Annexure P appeal dated [2] that the impugned notice has been issued by the Jurisdic Officer which could have not been done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessm IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22378 Date of Decision : Baljinder Singh versus Union of India and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Mr. Navdeep Monga, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents Department. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “1961 Act”); assessment (Annexure P-5) issued under Section 147 of the 1961 Act and dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P-6). The primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the impugned notice has been issued by the Jurisdic Officer which could have not been done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 22378-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 04.08.2025 …Petitioner ….Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL SUBHAS MEHLA Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, for the respondents-Income Tax Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated ) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax assessment order dated 24.03.2024 ) issued under Section 147 of the 1961 Act and order in . 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-7), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been ent. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated ) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax 24.03.2024 order in The primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is tional Assessing Officer which could have not been done because in terms of the ), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned notice could have been RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.08 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22378-2025 (O&M) -2- [3] 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 (ii) CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024. [4] Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in its 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). [5] In the light of the above, the present petition is allowed in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s and Jasjit Singh’s cases (supra), decided on 19.07.2024 and 29.07.2024, respectively. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 04.08.2025 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.08 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document