POLICYBAZAAR INSURANCE BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/37490/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01194886202522 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 and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. In those cited cases, the coordinate bench had allowed the writ petitions on similar grounds. The reasoning in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case highlighted that Section 151A of the Act and the notification dated March 29, 2022, clearly indicate the applicability of the faceless assessment scheme from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148/148A. The court emphasized that the object of faceless assessment would be defeated if the jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued such notices. While circulars and instructions from the Board are binding on authorities, courts are not bound by them, and statutory provisions prevail. The court found no ambiguity in the statutory provisions, rendering departmental instructions or office memorandums relied upon by the revenue as non-binding. The operative direction in the cited cases was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Policy Bazar Insurance Brokers Private Limited, challenged a notice dated March 30, 2025, issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated June 28, 2025, under Section 148A(3), and a notice dated June 28, 2025, under Section 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, citing a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 30, 2025, issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the order dated June 28, 2025, under Section 148A(3), and the notice dated June 28, 2025, under Section 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2021-2022, are without jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and order. They relied on a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, stating that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The petitioner further contended that the issue is covered by previous judgments of a coordinate bench of the High Court 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 148A,Section 148,Section 151A,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-37490 of 2025 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-37490 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 22.12.2025

Policy Bazar Insurance Brokers Private Limited

..... Petitioner

Versus

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1), Gurgaon and others

..... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL

Present: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Counsel

Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel

for respondents-Income Tax Department.

**** LISA GILL, J.

1.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 30.03.2025, issued under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’), order dated 28.06.2025, under Section 148A(3) of Act 1961, notice dated 28.06.2025, under Section 148 of 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. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by judgment passed by a Co-ordinate SANJAY KHAN 2025.12.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-37490 of 2025 (O&M)

-2- 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 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 SANJAY KHAN 2025.12.24 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-37490 of 2025 (O&M)

-3- 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 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →