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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/37491/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01194890202522 December 2025Author: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided on 29.07.2024). In Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case, the Court had held that the scheme of faceless assessment, as per Section 151A and notification dated 29.03.2022, applies from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148A and Section 148. The Court emphasized that statutory provisions are paramount and cannot be overridden by office memorandums or departmental instructions. The object of faceless assessment would be defeated if jurisdictional assessing officers issued such notices. The Co-ordinate Bench in those cases had allowed the writ petitions, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act if advised. The present judgment follows this precedent, with the revenue not disputing the applicability of these judgments.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Policy Bazar Insurance Brokers Private Limited, challenged a notice dated 30.03.2025 under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 28.06.2025 under Section 148A(3), and a notice dated 28.06.2025 under Section 148, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-2020. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, 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 another. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2025 under Section 148A(1), order dated 28.06.2025 under Section 148A(3), and notice dated 28.06.2025 under Section 148, issued for Assessment Year 2019-2020, are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC)? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148A and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and order because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 mandates that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner relied on judgments of a Co-ordinate 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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-37491 of 2025 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-37491 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 22.12.2025

Policy Bazar Insurance Brokers Private Limited

..... Petitioner

Versus

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another

..... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL

Present: Mr. Neeraj 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 2019-2020 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-37491 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-37491 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 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →