RESONANCE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13099/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01072286202509 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 case, indicated that Section 151A of the Act, 1961, and Clause 3(b) of the notification dated March 29, 2022, clearly show the applicability of the faceless assessment scheme from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148. The Court emphasized that the object of faceless assessment would be defeated if the notice is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. While acknowledging that circulars and instructions from the Board cannot override statutory provisions, the Court found the mandate of Section 144B, 151A read with the notification dated March 29, 2022, 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, Resonance Industries Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging a notice dated April 12, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue this notice. This contention was based on a CBDT circular/notification dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly vests the exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents, Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Faridabad, and others, were represented. The procedural history involves the issuance of the Section 148 notice and the subsequent challenge through a writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated April 12, 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/notification dated March 29, 2022? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the CBDT circular/notification dated March 29, 2022, specifically enumerates that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. Therefore, the notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court 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

CWP-13099-2025

121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-13099-2025

Date of Decision: May 09, 2025

Resonance Industries Pvt. Ltd.

.....Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Faridabad and others ..... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for the respondents.

**** LISA GILL, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 12.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”). Petitioner has challenged notice dated 12.04.2024 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 Bench of this Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of RITU SHARMA 2025.05.15 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13099-2025

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 provisions. The circulars are binding upon authorities and Courts are not bound by circulars. The mandate of Section RITU SHARMA 2025.05.15 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13099-2025

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 10:09 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 →