VIJAY KUMAR SINHA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13324/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01074642202516 July 2025Bench: 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 the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. The court noted that in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case, a Co-ordinate Bench had held 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. The court emphasized that the mandate of Section 144B and 151A, read with the notification, is lucid, and departmental instructions cannot override statutory provisions. The reasoning was that the object of faceless assessment would be defeated if a jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued the show cause notice under Section 148. The revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The application filed by the petitioner was disposed of as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vijay Kumar Sinha, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging a notice dated March 13, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated March 28, 2025, and all consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2017-18. The challenge was based on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondents are the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Faridabad, and others. The court also dealt with an application which was rendered infructuous.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 13, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order and proceedings for Assessment Year 2017-18 are invalid on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice, relying on the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which enumerates that the NFAC has exclusive power. The petitioner further contended that the issue is covered by previous 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 judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

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-13324-2025 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 142

CM-8371-CWP-2025 in/and

CWP-13324-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: July 16, 2025

Vijay Kumar Sinha

.....Petitioner

Versus

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Faridabad and others

..... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Varun Issar, Advocate for the respondents.

**** LISA GILL, J.

CM-8371-CWP-2025 1.

Since writ petition is listed for hearing today, prayer made in the application is rendered infructuous. 2.

Application is, accordingly, disposed of as infructuous.

CWP-13324-2025(O&M) 1.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); assessment order dated 28.03.2025 and all consequential proceedings for the Assessment year 2017-18 on the ground that Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction to issue the same, in view of RITU SHARMA 2025.07.22 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13324-2025 (O&M)

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 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.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the file with his 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 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 RITU SHARMA 2025.07.22 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13324-2025 (O&M)

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.” 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

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) July 16, 2025

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

RITU SHARMA 2025.07.22 17:49 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 →