SURINDER KAUR THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. AJAY PARTAP,DHALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, KULLU, KULLU
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
PHYSICAL HEARING
BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT
AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.500/CHANDI/2025
(िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2015-16)
Late Smt. Surinder Kaur
(D/o Sh. Gurdial Singh)
Through LR Shri Ajay Pratap
Raja Palace, Lower Dhalpur
PO Dhalpur, District Kullu (HP) 175101
बनाम/
Vs.
ITO Ward Kullu
Dhalpur, Kullu 175101
̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ALGPK-7148-G
(अपीलाथŎ/Appellant)
:
(ŮȑथŎ / Respondent)
अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by :
Sh. Ashwani Kumar (CA) a/w Ms. Deepali
Aggarwal (CA ) – Ld. ARs
ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by :
Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
17-09-2025
घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
17-09-2025
आदेश / O R D E R
Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2015- 16 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 18-02-2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act on 20-03-2023. 2
From the case records, it emerges that the assessee did not file return of income. To verify sale of certain immoveable property, the case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued by Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) (ITO, Ward Kullu) on 31-03-2022 which is placed in the paper-book. The Ld. AO assessed income of Rs.203.40 Lacs which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. The first appeal was filed by legal representative (LR) of the assessee since the assessee left for heavenly abode on 18-06-2017. No representation was made by LRs before any of lower authorities. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR raised various legal arguments including service of notice on dead person. The Ld. Sr. DR contended that no such information was provided on the web portal which would enable Ld. AO to serve notice on LRs. The Ld. AR also raised legal issue that notice has been issued by Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) which would vitiate the assessment proceedings as per various decisions of juri ictional High Court. 3. The undisputed fact that emerges is that notice u/s 148 has been issued on 31-03-2022 by Juri ictional 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 3
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 Juri ictional 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.
16. 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.
17. The notices issued by Juri ictional 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 hold that the impugned notice as issued by JAO u/s 148 on 31-03-2022 is liable to be quashed on this score only. We order so. Consequently, delving into other grounds has been rendered merely academic in nature.
4. The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order.
Order pronounced on 17th September, 2025. (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL)
VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 17-09-2025
आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant
2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent
3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT
4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR
5. गाडŊफाईल/GF