ABHISHEK SHARMA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/37243/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01201560202512 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 judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case, the Co-ordinate Bench had held that the scheme of faceless assessment, applicable from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148/148A, was evident from Section 151A and Clause 3(b) of the notification dated 29.03.2022. The Court reasoned that the object of faceless assessment would be defeated if a jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued the show cause notice. It was also noted that while circulars and instructions are binding on authorities, courts are not bound by them, and the statutory provisions of Section 144B and 151A, read with the notification, were lucid, leaving no ambiguity. Therefore, office memorandums or other instructions could not override these statutory provisions. The previous judgments had granted liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure if so advised. The present petition was disposed of on the same basis.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Abhishek Sharma, challenged a notice dated 08.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-2023. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction. This was attributed to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vested the exclusive power to issue such notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner cited two previous judgments by a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court, Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, which had decided similar issues in favour of the petitioner. The respondents, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others, did not dispute that the present case was covered by these prior decisions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by an authority other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice. This was based on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which, according to the petitioner, specifically enumerates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The petitioner relied on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, which allowed similar writ petitions on the same grounds. Revenue's contentions: The respondents did not dispute that the issue involved 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-37243 of 2025 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-37243 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 Abhishek Sharma

..... Petitioner

Versus

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others

..... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL

Present: Mr. Rohit Kaura, 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 08.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’), for the Assessment Year 2022-2023 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 2025.12.16 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-37243 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 mandate of Section 144B, 151A readwith notification SANJAY KHAN 2025.12.16 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-37243 of 2025 (O&M)

-3- 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) 12.12.2025

JUDGE s.khan Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SANJAY KHAN 2025.12.16 13:23 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 →