SATYADEV GOYAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/24956/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01136110202527 August 2025Author: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the notice and assessment order. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, which held that the scheme of faceless assessment, applicable from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148, mandates that such notices be issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) as per Section 151A and the notification dated March 29, 2022. The Court noted that while circulars and office memorandums cannot override statutory provisions, the mandate of Section 144B and 151A read with the notification is clear. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act if so advised. The appeal pending before the Appellate Authority was directed to be decided in terms of these judgments.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Satyadev Goyal, challenged a notice dated March 30, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated March 24, 2024, under Section 147 for Assessment Year 2019-2020, and subsequent proceedings. The challenge was based on the assertion that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner also sought a time-bound decision on an appeal filed on April 6, 2024. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 30, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order dated March 24, 2024, under Section 147 for Assessment Year 2019-2020, are liable to be set aside on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices? Assessee's contention: The notice and assessment order are void ab initio as the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, citing the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, and relying on judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: Not recorded, but the revenue did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.

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

CWP-24956 of 2025 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-24956 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 27.08.2025

Satyadev Goyal

..... Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer and others

..... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present: Mr. B.M.Monga, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Advocate

for respondents-Income Tax Department.

**** LISA GILL, J.

1.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that notice dated 30.03.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’), assessment order dated 24.03.2024, under Section 147 of Act 1961, for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 and all subsequent proceedings, should be set aside 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. There is a further prayer for directing respondent to decide appeal dated 06.04.2024, filed by petitioner in a time bound manner.

2.

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by judgment passed by a Co-ordinate RITU SHARMA 2025.08.29 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-24956 of 2025 (O&M)

-2- and others, passed in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided 21509- 2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent-Income Tax has also not disputed the same.

4.

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

5.

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 RITU SHARMA 2025.08.29 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-24956 of 2025 (O&M)

-3- 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 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. (LISA GILL)

JUDGE

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) 27.08.2025

JUDGE ‘om’

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RITU SHARMA 2025.08.29 11:18 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 →