MANJU BALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30584/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01161866202520 January 2026Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,JUSTICE (TO BE NOMINATED)3 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 vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. The Court noted that the scheme of faceless assessment, as applicable from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148 and 148A, is evident from Section 151A and the notification dated 29.03.2022. The Court reiterated that the mandate of Section 144B and 151A, read with the notification, is clear and that office memorandums or other instructions cannot override statutory provisions. The Court explicitly stated that other issues raised in the writ petition were not adjudicated upon and were left open for decision in appropriate proceedings. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the cited precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manju Bala, challenged a notice dated 23.02.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 22.02.2024 under Section 148A(d), a show cause notice dated 31.01.2024 under Section 148A(b), and an assessment order dated 16.05.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144C(3) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue did not dispute that the issue was covered by previous High Court judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent proceedings are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which mandates that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 151A of the Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The writ petition should be allowed as the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, as per CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which grants exclusive power to NFAC to issue notices under Section 148. This issue is covered by judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not deny that the issue raised was covered by the aforementioned judgments in favour of the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 147,Section 144C(3),Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-30584-2025

131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-30584-2025

Date of Decision: January 20, 2026

MANJU BALA

.....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HOSHIARPUR AND ORS

..... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI

Present: Mr. Nitin Kanwar, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing counsel with

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing counsel for respondent No. 1.

Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standing counsel for respondent No. 2.

**** LISA GILL, J.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 23.02.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); order dated 22.02.2024 under Section 148A(d) of Act 1961; show cause notice dated 31.01.2024 under Section 148A(b) of Act 1961 and Assessment order dated 16.05.2025 under Section 147 read with Section 144C(3) of Act 1961 for the Assessment year 2017-18, and all subsequent proceedings. RITU SHARMA 2026.01.31 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30584-2025

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that dehors any other available ground, this writ petition should be allowed 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 National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 3.

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 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- 2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024. 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 RITU SHARMA 2026.01.31 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-30584-2025

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 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.”

Learned counsel for respondents does not deny that the sole issue as raised is covered in favour of petitioner in view of abovesaid decisions. 6.

In view of above and without adverting to any other ground, 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. Needless to say, other issues as have been raised in this writ petition are not being adjudicated upon and are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. 7.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(LISA GILL)

JUDGE

(RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI) January 20, 2026

JUDGE Rts Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RITU SHARMA 2026.01.31 15:26 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 →