ASHISH MITTAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/27615/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01149359202516 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 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case had allowed writ petitions on the same issue. In Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case, the Court had observed that Section 151A and Clause 3(b) of the notification dated 29.03.2022 clearly indicate that the scheme of faceless assessment is applicable from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148. The Court held that the object of faceless assessment would be defeated if a jurisdictional assessing officer issued such notices. While acknowledging that circulars and instructions cannot override statutory provisions, the Court found the mandate of Section 144B, 151A, read with the notification, to be lucid. Consequently, the High 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, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ashish Mittal, challenged a notice dated 22.11.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 11.03.2025 passed under Section 147 of the Act, and consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, citing a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The petitioner also noted that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Department, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 22.11.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent order dated 11.03.2025 passed under Section 147 of the Act, are without jurisdiction in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vests exclusive power in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, relying on the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly states that the NFAC has exclusive power. The petitioner also referred to a co-ordinate bench judgment 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 of 2023) which dealt with a similar issue. The petitioner further submitted that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 151A,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

139

CWP-27615-2025

Date of Decision: 16.09.2025

ASHISH MITTAL

..... PETITIONER

Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:- Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and

Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel, with

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel, and

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsel,

for respondent-Income Tax Department.

*****

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1.

Challenge in the present petition is to Notice dated 22.11.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act 1961"), order dated 11.03.2025 passed under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential proceedings for the Assessment year 2021-2022, 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 the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.17 06:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-27615-2025

-2-

Union of India and others, passed in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected 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 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 PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.17 06:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-27615-2025

-3-

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

[LAPITA BANERJI] 16.09.2025

JUDGE Prince

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.17 06:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →