AAR ENN POULTRIES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/26997/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01146472202511 September 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 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 had held that the scheme of faceless assessment, as per Section 151A and the notification dated 29.03.2022, applies from the stage of the show cause notice under Section 148. The Court found no ambiguity in the statutory provisions and observed that departmental circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions. The High Court, in the present case, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal in terms of the aforementioned judgments, allowing the revenue liberty to follow the prescribed procedure if so advised. The specific finding on the jurisdictional issue was implicitly affirmed by directing the appeal to be decided in line with prior judgments that had found such notices to be without jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aar Enn Poultries, challenged a notice dated 11.03.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated 13.03.2024, and consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2019-2020. 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 also stated 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 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order for AY 2019-2020 are without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 granting exclusive power to 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 of the Act, 1961, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which specifies that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power for such issuances. The petitioner relied on judgments from a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. 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 151A,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.123

CWP-26997-2025 Date of decision : 11.09.2025

Aar Enn Poultries

.…. Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Chandigarh and others

..... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Mr. B. M. Monga, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel, with Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Sanding Counsel and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel, for the Income Tax Department.

* * * * *

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 11.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’), assessment order dated 13.03.2024 and all consequential proceedings for the Assessment year 2019-2020, 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 CWP No. 15745-2024 and 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. SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.09.16 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

CWP-26997-2025

[ 2 ]

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 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 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

11.09.

2025

[LAPITA BANERJI] shamsher

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.09.16 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity 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 →