NEERAJ GOYAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/24940/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01136136202527 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, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. These prior judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, holding that the scheme of faceless assessment, as applicable from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148 and 148A, is evident from Section 151A and the CBDT notification dated March 29, 2022. The Court found that the mandate of Section 144B, 151A, read with the notification, was lucid, and statutory provisions cannot be overridden by office memorandums or other instructions. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Neeraj Goyal, challenged a notice dated March 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated April 29, 2024, under Section 148A(d) for Assessment Year 2017-2018, and all 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 vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order dated April 29, 2024, under Section 148A(d) for Assessment Year 2017-2018, are liable to be set aside on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act? Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice and assessment order due to the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which specifies that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The petitioner relies on judgments from a co-ordinate bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-24940 of 2025 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-24940 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 27.08.2025

Neeraj Goyal

..... Petitioner

Versus

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 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. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate

for respondents-Income Tax Department.

**** LISA GILL, J.

1.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that notice dated 26.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’), assessment order dated 29.04.2024 under Section 148A(d) of Act 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-2018 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. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by judgment passed by a Co-ordinate 2025.08.29 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-24940 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. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent 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 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. RITU SHARMA 2025.08.29 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-24940 of 2025 (O&M)

-3- 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.

In view of the 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. (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 →