NARINDER BANSAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21509/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117004202529 July 2025Bench: JUSTICE (TO BE NOMINATED),MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the decisions in *Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others* and *Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others*. The Court noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously allowed writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning, as per the cited judgments, was that Section 151A of the Act and Clause 3(b) of the notification dated 29.03.2022 clearly indicate that the faceless assessment scheme is applicable from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148. The Court emphasized that the object of faceless assessment would be defeated if jurisdictional assessing officers issued such notices. It was also held that departmental circulars or letters cannot override statutory provisions, and while circulars bind authorities, courts are not bound by them. The mandate of Sections 144B and 151A read with the notification is lucid, leaving no ambiguity. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the revenue 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, represented by Kartik Bansal, Advocate, 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 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the Issuing Authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice, citing a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 which, according to the petitioner, exclusively vests the power to issue such notices under Section 148 with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner contended that this issue was identical to those decided by a co-ordinate bench of the High Court in previous cases. The respondents, represented by Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Issuing Authority had the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2019-2020, given the notification dated 29.03.2022 of the CBDT? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Issuing Authority lacked jurisdiction because the CBDT notification dated 29.03.2022, issued under Section 151A of the Act, exclusively grants the power to issue notices under Section 148 to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner relied on the judgment of a co-ordinate bench in *Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others* (CWP No. 1574-2024) and *Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others* (CWP No. 21509-2023). Revenue's Contention: The revenue 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

160 IN THE NARINDER B INCOME TAX

CORAM: H

Present M M M f * ASHWANI K

1.

C 28.05.2025 is short “Act 19 year 2019-202 issue the sam CBDT, where Assessment C Section 148 o 2. L in the present Bench of this India and oth decided on 1 E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH Da BANSAL

V X OFFICER WARD 2(1), FARID

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULD Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present petition ssued under Section 148 of the 961"), and all consequential pro 20, on the ground that Issuing A me, in view of circular/notifica ein, it has been specifically enum Centre (NFAC) has exclusive of the Act, 1961. Learned counsel for petitioner co t writ petition is covered by judg s Court in the cases of Jatinder hers, passed in CWP No. 1574 9.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh vs B AND HARYANA AT H CWP-21509-2025 (O&M) ate of Decision: 29thJuly, 2025

.…...Petitioner(s) V/s. DABAD AND OTHERS ......Respondent(s) HWANI KUMAR MISHRA DEEP TIWARI the petitioner. g Counsel, with n is to impugned notice dated e Income Tax Act, 1961 (for oceedings for the Assessment Authority had no jurisdiction to ation dated 29.03.2022 of the merated that National Faceless power to issue notice under ontends that the issue involved gment passed by a Co-ordinate r Singh Bhangu vs. Union of 45-2024 and connected matter, s. Union of India and others SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.31 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-21509-2025 (O&M)

Page 2 of 3

(CWP No. 21509 of 2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024. 3. 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 144B, 151A read with notification dated 29.03.2022 issued SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.31 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-21509-2025 (O&M)

Page 3 of 3

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 pending applications in this case are disposed of accordingly.

[ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] JUDGE

[KULDEEP TIWARI] JUDGE

July 29, 2025 Ess Kay

Whether speaking / reasoned

Yes / No Whether Reportable

Yes / No SURESH KUMAR 2025.07.31 09:19 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 →