SURENDER SINGH DESWAL,PANCHKULA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PKL, PANCHKULA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 was issued by the JAO instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which is contrary to the mandate of Section 151A and relevant notifications. This procedural defect vitiates the assessment proceedings.
What were the facts?
The assessee's case for AY 2016-17 was reopened under Section 147 read with Section 144 based on an advance loan given to M/s GLM Infratech Ltd. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) issued a notice u/s 148, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment proceedings are vitiated due to the notice u/s 148 being issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of the Faceless AO as per the scheme of faceless assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 69,Section 151A,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India106 citing165 Taxmann.com 115 · 2024 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 08-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 13/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 11-04- 2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act on 15-03-2024.
From the case records, it emerges that the assessee’s case was reopened on the ground that it advanced loan to M/s GLM Infratech Ltd. To verify the creditworthiness, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) of the assessee passed order u/s 148A(d) on 30-03-2023 and issued notice u/s 148 on the same very day. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition u/s 69 for Rs.54.83 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
The Ld. AR raised pertinent legal ground to state that reopening was bad-in-law and in derogation of the provisions of Sec.151A read with CBDT Notification no.18/2022 dated 29-03-2022 which mandate issuance of such notice by Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) only. The Ld. AR asserted that in terms of ratio of various decisions of jurisdictional High Court, issuance of notice u/s 148 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) would vitiate the assessment proceedings. The Ld. Sr. DR opposed admission of any such ground at this stage of proceedings.
The undisputed fact that emerges is that notice u/s 148 has been issued on 30-03-2022 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This notice, in terms of notification of the Central Government dated 29-03-2022 u/s 151A sub-section (1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, was required to be issued by FAO. The failure to do so would vitiate the assessment proceedings as per the lead decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (165 Taxmann.com 115), the substantive portion of which read 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 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. Instructions/circulars can supplement but cannot supplant statutory provisions.
In the wake of above discussion and findings, we find it appropriate to subscribe view expressed by Bombay, Telangana and Gauhati High Court. The instant petitions deserve to be allowed and accordingly allowed.
The notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 are hereby quashed with liberty to respondent to proceed in accordance with procedure prescribed by law.
Respectfully following the same, we would admit the additional ground and hold that the impugned notice as issued by JAO u/s 148 on 30-03- 2022 is liable to be quashed on this score only. We order so. Consequently, delving into other grounds has been rendered merely academic in nature.
The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 13/10/2025 (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 13/10/2025 आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. ""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Late Abdullah Abdulmajeed, Rep. by L/H… vs ITO, Ward-1, PudukkottaiChennai4 Mar 2026Allowed
Also relies on Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
- Prakash Reddy Vatti, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward-11(1), HyderabadHyderabad23 Jan 2026Allowed
Also relies on Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) without following the mandatory procedure for National Faceless Assessment rendered the proceedings invalid. Conseq...
- Meka Viraj Gopal Apparao, Nuzvid vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(1)…Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2026Allowed
Also relies on Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the High Court's decision to quash the notice under Section 148 rendered the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was allowed in the int...
- Sunita, Sahu vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…Agra21 Jan 2026Allowed
Also relies on Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the JAO for issuing notices under sections 148A and 148 was bad in law and void ab initio. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
- Narayani Rathore, Shivpuri vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…Agra21 Jan 2026Allowed
Also relies on Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the JAO for reopening the assessment was bad in law and void ab initio. The reassessment proceedings were quashed as a result.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026