MALKIT SINGH vs. PR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NWR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17048/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093890202413 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 its previous judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. The Court noted that in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case, it was held that the scheme of faceless assessment, as evident from Section 151A and Clause 3(b) of the notification dated 29.03.2022, is applicable from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148. The Court emphasized that the object of faceless assessment would be defeated if the show cause notice under Section 148 is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and that departmental instructions cannot override statutory provisions. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The impugned notice was set aside on the ground of being issued by the wrong authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Malkit Singh (since deceased) through his Legal Representative, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 08.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that the notice was illegal and without jurisdiction as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, including the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax NWR, were the authorities against whom the petition was filed. The High Court was asked to set aside the impugned notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18, is illegal and without jurisdiction if issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC)? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and the faceless assessment scheme). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice dated 08.04.2024 was illegal and without jurisdiction because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas it ought to have been issued through the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner relied on Division Bench judgments of the same High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. Revenue's contentions: The respondents' counsel fairly accepted that the notice had been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas it was required to be issued through the NFAC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
215-5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17048 of 2024 Date of Decision: 13.08.2025 Malkit Singh (since deceased) through his LR …Petitioner Versus Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax NWR and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present:- Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate and Mr. Sameesh Bassi, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Standing Counsel, Income Tax Dept. with Ms. Nikita Garg, Advocate for the respondents. ***** LISA GILL, J.(Oral) 1. Learned counsel for petitioner submit that at this stage, petitioner confines his prayer for setting-aside notice dated 08.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act, 1961’) for the assessment year 2017-18 being illegal and without jurisdiction having been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of having been issued through the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). Reference is made to the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, passed in CWP No.15745 of 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. NEETU RANI 2025.08.22 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD -2-

2.

Learned counsel for respondents fairly accept that notice has been issued by Juri ictional Assessing Officer whereas it was required to be issued through NFAC.

3.

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

4.

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 is 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 NEETU RANI 2025.08.22 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD -3-

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.”

5.

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. 6. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(LISA GILL)

JUDGE

13.08.

2025

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) neetu

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable:

Yes/No NEETU RANI 2025.08.22 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →