TIRUPATI RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28732/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01154475202525 September 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously allowed writ petitions on the same issue in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cases, the Court held that Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with the notification dated 29.03.2022, mandates that the scheme of faceless assessment, including the issuance of show cause notices under Section 148, is applicable. The Court emphasized that the object of faceless assessment would be defeated if jurisdictional assessing officers issued such notices. While circulars and instructions cannot override statutory provisions, the mandate of Section 144B and 151A read with the notification was clear and unambiguous. The Court disposed of the present writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tirupati Renewable Energy Company Pvt. Ltd., challenged a notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, citing 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 also stated that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The respondents, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, considering the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly vests exclusive power with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). Assessee's contention: The notice is invalid as the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 and judgments of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151A,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ( Sr. No. 133 ) CWP No.28732 of 2025 Date of decision: 25.09.2025 Tirupati Renewable Energy Company Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel (appeared through video conferencing) and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent(s)- Income Tax Department. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1) Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short – 1961 Act) and all consequential proceedings for the Assessment year 2020-2021, on the ground that Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction 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 1961 Act. SUNIL YADAV 2025.09.26 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order. Chandigarh [2]

(2)

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by judgments passed by a Co-ordinate India and others - CWP No. 15745-2024 and other connected matter decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others - CWP No. 21509 of 2023 and other connected matters decided on 29.07.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner has preferred an appeal and same is pending before Appellate Authority. (3)

Learned counsel appearing for respondents has also not disputed the same. (4)

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file with their able assistance. (5)

A 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 1961 Act 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 SUNIL YADAV 2025.09.26 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh [3]

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 read with 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."

(6)

As appeal in the present proceedings is pending before the Appellate Authority, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the same 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. (DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE

25.09.

2025

( LAPITA BANERJI ) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2025.09.26 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. 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 →