DHARMENDER KUKREJA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19717/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01108523202516 July 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 previous judgments by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. These prior judgments had allowed writ petitions on similar issues, holding that the scheme of faceless assessment, as evident from Section 151A and notification dated 29.03.2022, applies from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148. The Court reasoned that the object of faceless assessment would be defeated if a jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued such notices, and that statutory provisions, not office memorandums or departmental instructions, are binding. 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, Dharmender Kukreja, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 28.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2022-2023. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and others. The petition was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-2023 is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner relied on judgments from a Co-ordinate Bench 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 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 148A,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1

CWP-19717-2025

171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-19717-2025

Date of Decision: July 16, 2025

DHARMENDER KUKREJA

.....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

..... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Varun Issar and Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Advocates, for the

respondent/Income Tax Department.

**** LISA GILL, J.

1.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 28.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential proceedings for the Assessment year 2022-2023, 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 RITU SHARMA 2025.07.17 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2

CWP-19717-2025 India and others, passed in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, 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.”

RITU SHARMA 2025.07.17 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3

CWP-19717-2025

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. 7. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (LISA GILL)

JUDGE

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) July 16, 2025

JUDGE Rts Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

RITU SHARMA 2025.07.17 16:44 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 →