DALBIR SINGH CHAHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/37028/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01200398202522 December 2025Author: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL3 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 vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023), decided on July 19, 2024, and July 29, 2024, respectively. These prior judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, holding that the scheme of faceless assessment, as per Section 151A and notification dated March 29, 2022, applies from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148. The Court noted that while circulars and instructions cannot override statutory provisions, the mandate of Section 144B and 151A read with the notification was lucid. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dalbir Singh Chahal, challenged a notice dated March 28, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that according to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices. The respondents, the Income Tax Officer and others, did not dispute that the issue was covered by previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 28, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022, is invalid on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which mandates that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench 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 revenue did not dispute that the issue was covered in favour of the petitioner by the aforementioned decisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151A,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-37028 of 2025 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-37028of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 22.12.2025

Dalbir Singh Chahal

..... Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer and others

..... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL

Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel

Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Jr. Standing Counsel

Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate

Ms. Muskaan Chauhan, Advocate

Ms. Tanya Kumar, Advocate

for respondents-Income Tax Department.

**** LISA GILL, J.

1.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 28.03.2025, passed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’), for the Assessment Year 2021-2022 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. SANJAY KHAN 2025.12.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-37028 of 2025 (O&M)

-2-

2.

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by judgment passed by a Co-ordinate India and others, passed in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, (CWP No. 21509-2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024. 3. It is submitted that 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 SANJAY KHAN 2025.12.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-37028 of 2025 (O&M)

-3- 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 readwith notification dated 29.03.2022 issued thereunder is quite lucid. There is no ambiguity in the language of 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 respondent does not dispute that 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. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(LISA GILL)

JUDGE

(PARMOD GOYAL) 22.12.2025

JUDGE s.khan Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SANJAY KHAN 2025.12.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →