SATYENDRA PRATAP vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11869/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01066511202509 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI3 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's case and Jasjit Singh's case. The Court noted that the co-ordinate bench in those cases had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning, as per the cited Jatinder Singh Bhangu judgment, was that Section 151A of the Act, read with the notification dated March 29, 2022, clearly indicates that the scheme of faceless assessment is applicable from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148/148A. The Court emphasized that the object of faceless assessment would be defeated if a jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued such a notice. While acknowledging that circulars and instructions cannot override statutory provisions, the Court found the mandate of Section 144B, 151A, and the notification to be lucid and unambiguous. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Satyendra Pratap, challenged a notice dated March 12, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the filing of a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The amount in dispute is not mentioned. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 12, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad, is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction in view of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, relying on the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which specifies that the NFAC has exclusive power. The petitioner cited judgments from a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509 of 2023). 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

1 CWP-11869-2025

111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-11869-2025

Date of Decision: May 09, 2025

Satyendra Pratap

.....Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad and others ..... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner (through VC).

Mr. Varun Issar, Advocate for the respondents.

**** LISA GILL, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 12.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”). Petitioner has challenged notice dated 12.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, on the ground that Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction to issue the same, in view of circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 of the CBDT, wherein, it has been specifically enumerated that 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 2025.05.16 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2 CWP-11869-2025

Bench of this Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, passed in 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 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.

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 Jurisdictional 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 RITU SHARMA 2025.05.16 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3 CWP-11869-2025

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.

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

(VIKAS SURI) May 09, 2025

JUDGE Rts

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RITU SHARMA 2025.05.16 11:54 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 →