GEETA PANDEY vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/36110/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01194381202510 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 decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cited cases, the Court had held that the scheme of faceless assessment, as applicable from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148/148A, is evident from Section 151A and the CBDT notification dated 29.03.2022. The Court noted that Clause 3(b) of the notification clearly applies to notices under Section 148. It was further reasoned that assessment proceedings commence from the issuance of a show cause notice, and allowing a jurisdictional Assessing Officer to issue such a notice would defeat the object of faceless assessment. The Court emphasized that while circulars and instructions from the Board are binding on authorities, courts are not bound by them, and statutory provisions prevail. The judgments in the cited cases allowed the writ petitions, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act if so advised. Therefore, the present petition was disposed of on similar lines, implying the notice was likely quashed with liberty to issue a fresh notice in accordance with the law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Geeta Pandey, challenged a notice dated 21.10.2024, 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 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 petitioner argued that this issue was covered by previous judgments of a co-ordinate bench of the same High Court in similar cases. The respondents, the Director General Income Tax (Investigation) and another, did not dispute that the issue was covered by the cited precedents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-2022 is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and the applicability of the CBDT circular). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifies that the NFAC has exclusive power. The petitioner relied on 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), which allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. Revenue's contentions: The revenue did not dispute that the issue involved was covered by the judgments cited by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-36110 of 2025 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-36110 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 10.12.2025

Geeta Pandey

..... Petitioner

Versus

Director General Income Tax (Investigation) and another

..... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL

Present: Mr. Parminder Walia, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel

for respondents-Income Tax Department.

**** LISA GILL, J.

1.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 21.10.2024, issued 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. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by judgment passed by a Co-ordinate 2025.12.12 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-36110 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 2025.12.12 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-36110 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) 10.12.2025

JUDGE s.khan Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SANJAY KHAN 2025.12.12 11:29 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →