CWP-18607-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Sukhpal Singh Bhullar Income Tax Officer, Ward CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. for the petitioner Mr. Yogesh Mr. Vaibhav Gupta and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, for the Income Tax Department DEEPAK SIBAL Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 25.06.2025 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 done because in terms of the notification issued by the notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. 2. In support of h petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court: i. CWP India and others, 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-18607 Date of Decision : Sukhpal Singh Bhullar Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Chandigarh and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department-respondents. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice .06.2025 (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 done because in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned ould have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court: CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu India and others, decided on 19.07.2024; and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 18607-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.07.2025 …Petitioner ), Chandigarh and others …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Putney, Senior Standing Counsel and Jr. Standing Counsels respondents. Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice ) 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 dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-2), Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the impugned ould have been issued only by way of faceless assessment. is afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court:- Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of decided on 19.07.2024; and VANDANA 2025.07.11 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18607-2025 ii. CWP others 3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co Benches of this Court in 4. In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh dated 25.06.2025 Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. The July 09, 2025 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh others, decided on 29.07.2024. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in his through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co Benches of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra) .06.2025 (Annexure P-1), issued by the Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition is allowed in the above terms. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 5 ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Singh Vs. Union of India and Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact is covered in his favour by the law laid down through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co-ordinate Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh (supra). In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in (supra), the impugned notice ), issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against petition is allowed in the above terms. DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.07.11 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document