KULBIR SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD WARD MOHALI 1 AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/37942/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01205768202523 December 2025Author: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cited cases, the coordinate bench had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, holding that the scheme of faceless assessment, as applicable from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148/148A, was evident from Section 151A and the notification dated 29.03.2022. The court noted that the mandate of Section 144B, 151A, read with the notification, was lucid, and office memorandums or other instructions could not override statutory provisions. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The present judgment did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kulbir Singh, challenged a notice dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-2017, along with a subsequent assessment order dated 17.03.2025, penalty notices, and demand notices. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer OSD Ward Mohali 1 and others. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh was hearing the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-2017, and subsequent proceedings, are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 mandating the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power with the NFAC. The petitioner relied on coordinate bench judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023). Revenue's Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, did not dispute that the issue was covered by the aforementioned decisions in favour of the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 148A,Section 151A,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1

CWP-37942-2025

143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-37942-2025

Date of Decision: December 23, 2025

KULBIR SINGH

.....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER O WARD MOHALI 1 AND OTHERS

..... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. Tarang Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing counsel for the respondents – Income Tax Department.

**** LISA GILL, J.

1.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961) for the Assessment year 2016-2017; assessment order dated 17.03.2025 under Section 147 of the Act 1961; penalty notice dated 21.04.2025, demand notice dated 23.09.2025; penalty order dated 23.09.2025 and all subsequent proceedings on the ground that Issuing Authority had no juri iction to issue the same, in view of circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 of the CBDT, wherein, it has been specifically enumerated that National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. RITU SHARMA 2025.12.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2

CWP-37942-2025

2.

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench others in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509- 2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024. 3. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra) and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), allowed the writ petitions on the same issue, as raised in the present writ petition, by granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. Relevant portion of decision dated 19.07.2024 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra) reads as under:- “15. From the perusal of Section 151A, it is quite evident that scheme of faceless assessment is applicable from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148 as well as 148A. Clause 3(b) of notification dated 29.03.2022 issued under Section 151A clearly provides that scheme would be applicable to notice under Section 148. Even otherwise, it is a settled proposition of law that assessment proceedings commence from the stage of issuance of show cause notice. The object of introduction of faceless assessment would be defeated if show cause notice under Section 148 is issued by Juri ictional Assessing Officer. The respondents are heavily placing reliance upon office memorandum and letter issued by departmental authorities. It is axiomatic in tax jurisprudence that circulars, instructions and letters issued by Board or any other authority cannot override statutory provisions. The circulars are binding upon authorities and Courts are not bound by circulars. The mandate of Section 144B, 151A read with notification dated 29.03.2022 issued thereunder is quite lucid. There is no ambiguity in the language of RITU SHARMA 2025.12.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3

CWP-37942-2025

statutory provisions, thus, office memorandum or any other instruction issued by Board or any other authority cannot be relied upon.”

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not dispute that the issue involved is covered in favour of petitioner in view of abovesaid decisions.

5.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, present writ petition is disposed of, in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra), decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), decided on 29.07.2024. 6. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(LISA GILL)

JUDGE

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL) December 23, 2025

JUDGE Rts Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

RITU SHARMA 2025.12.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →