PCIT Vs Surender Singh Deswal (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Summary: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against the ITAT’s decision quashing a notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The Revenue raised six substantial questions of law challenging the Tribunal’s reliance on Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs Union of India, the effect of pending Supreme Court special leave petitions, and the interpretation of Sections 147, 148, 144B and 151A concerning jurisdiction under the faceless reassessment regime. It contended that the JAO retained concurrent jurisdiction, relied on the Delhi High Court’s decision in T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd., cited the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Talati and Talati LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax concerning search-related information, and asserted that prior approval of the specified authority supported the notice’s validity. The High Court recorded that it was undisputed that all these questions had already been answered against the Revenue in Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, CWP No.15791 of 2024, decided on 10.09.2026. In view of that consensus, the Court dismissed the appeal by applying Jyoti Sareen, leaving the Tribunal’s quashing of the notice undisturbed.
Cases Discussed
- Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, CWP No.15791 of 2024, decided on 10.09.2026 (Punjab and Haryana High Court) — The Court followed this decision, recording that it had answered all six questions against the Revenue.
- Union of India v. Jatinder Singh Bhangu, SLP (C) No.15252 of 2025 (Supreme Court) — The Revenue cited the pendency of this petition in questioning the Tribunal’s treatment of the legal position as final; no ruling in this petition is reproduced.
- Union of India v. Jasjit Singh, SLP (C) No.7399 of 2025 (Supreme Court) — The Revenue similarly referred to this pending petition; the supplied order does not state its disposal or any substantive Supreme Court finding.
- T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, [2024] 167 taxmann.com 759 (Delhi High Court) — The Revenue relied on its concurrent-jurisdiction approach and its distinction between faceless assessment procedure and assumption of jurisdiction.
- Talati and Talati LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, [2024] 167 taxmann.com 371 (Gujarat High Court) — The Revenue cited this decision for its contention that the notification dated 29.03.2022 did not cover JAO-issued notices based on search-related information.
- Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India and others, 2024:PHHC:090942-DB, CWP No.15745 of 2024 and connected CWP No.15791 of 2024, decided on 19.07.2024 (Punjab and Haryana High Court) — The Tribunal’s reliance on this decision to quash the notice was challenged by the Revenue.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. Through this appeal, the revenue raises the following substantial questions of law:-
“A. Whether the Ld. ITAT is legally justified in quashing the notice issued u/s 148 in the case of the assessee by relying on the judgment by Hon’ble High Court in the case of Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs Union of India in CWP No 15745 of 2024 dated 19.07.2024 without adjudicating the question of law raised by the assessee petitioner and specifically in view of facts that question of law raised by the assessee on the issue of jurisdiction for issuance of aforesaid notice and question of law adjudicated by the Hon’ble High court is altogether different?
B. Whether the Hon’ble ITAT failed to exercise jurisdiction lawfully by adjudicating the issue as if the legal position had attained finality, despite the admitted pendency of multiple Special Petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Union of India v. Jasjit Singh (SLP (C) No.7399 of 2025) and Union of India v. Jatinder Singh Bhangu (SLP (C) No. 15252 of 2025), thereby rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable?
C. Whether on a correct interpretation of Sections 147, 148, 144B and 151A of the Income Tax Act 1961, the Honble ITAT erred in law in concluding that the issuance of notice under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid, despite the absence of any statutory provision expressly divesting the JAO of such jurisdiction, and in disregard of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. holding that Section 144B governs the procedure of faceless assessment and not the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148?
D. Whether the Hon’ble ITAT erred in law in not applying the settled principle that where two statutory authorities are conferred jurisdiction under the Act, such jurisdiction is concurrent unless expressly excluded, and in overlooking the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that the faceless regime is supplementary and not exclusionary of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer’s powers under Section 148?
E. Whether the impugned decision of Ld. ITAT is not perverse as the they failed to consider the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court at Ahmedabad in the case of Talati and Talati LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 167 taxmann.com 371 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that the Notification dated 29.03.2022 does not apply to cases where notice under Section 148 is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer on the basis of information to search and seizure ITA-210-2026 (O&M) -3- received pursuant proceedings under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act?
F. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in law in holding that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was invalid, ignoring the fact that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is competent to issue such notice after obtaining the prior approval of the specified authority?”
2. It is not disputed that through a recent judgment of this Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 – Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, all the afore questions have been answered against the revenue.
3. In the light of the above consensus, this appeal is dismissed in the light of the law laid down in Jyoti Sareen’s case (supra).
