KAVITA PATHAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11924/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01066990202509 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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 reasoning, as extracted from Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case, states that Section 151A of the Act, 1961, read with Clause 3(b) of the notification dated March 29, 2022, clearly indicates that the faceless assessment scheme is applicable from the stage of a show cause notice under Section 148. The Court noted that the object of faceless assessment would be defeated if a jurisdictional Assessing Officer issues such a notice. While circulars and instructions from the Board are binding on authorities, courts are not bound by them. However, the mandate of Section 144B and 151A, read with the notification, is lucid, and departmental instructions cannot override statutory provisions. 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, Kavita Pathak, challenged a notice dated March 31, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, the Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Faridabad, and others, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the relevant precedents. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana considered the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 31, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority lacked jurisdiction as the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, mandates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relies on judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided on July 19, 2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509 of 2023, decided on July 29, 2024). Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151A,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-11924-2025

115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-11924-2025

Date of Decision: May 09, 2025

Kavita Pathak

.....Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), 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 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”). Petitioner has challenged notice dated 31.03.2024 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. RITU SHARMA 2025.05.15 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11924-2025

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by judgment passed by a Co-ordinate 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 RITU SHARMA 2025.05.15 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11924-2025

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.” 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 2025.05.15 11:49 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 →