Disposed¶6

Paramjit Singh v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 May 2025CWP/11593/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 148 Income Tax Act 1961; notice dated 30.03.2025; jurisdiction of Issuing Authority; NFAC exclusive power; CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022; faceless assessment scheme; Section 151A; Section 144B; Section 148A; show cause notice; Jurisdictional Assessing Officer; disposed of following Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509 of 2023, 29.07.2024); Punjab and Haryana High Court; CWP-11593-2025; Lisa Gill J.; Vikas Suri J.; decision date May 09, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the Coordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided 29.07.2024); all pending applications, if any, also disposed of accordingly. ¶6

Paramjit Singh Vs Union of India and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was validly issued by the Issuing Authority, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 enumerating that NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148.

¶1

Court's answer

The issue raised in the writ petition is covered by the Coordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (CWP No. 21509 of 2023, decided 29.07.2024), which allowed writ petitions on the same issue by granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute this.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided 29.07.2024), and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Challenge to notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 having specifically enumerated that NFAC has exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute that the issue was covered by the Coordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509 of 2023, decided 29.07.2024), wherein writ petitions on the same issue were allowed with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure under the Act, 1961. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of those decisions, with all pending applications likewise disposed of.

¶1

¶2

CWP-11593-2025

¶3

109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-11593-2025 Date of Decision: May 09, 2025

¶5

Paramjit Singh .....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India and others

¶8

..... Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

¶10

Present: Mr. Navdeep Monga, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

¶13

LISA GILL, J.

¶14

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”). Petitioner has challenged notice dated 30.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, 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 NFAC has exclusive power to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.

¶15

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the issue involved RITU SHARMAin the present writ petition is covered by judgment passed by a Co-ordinate 2025.05.15 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

¶17

CWP-11593-2025

¶18

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.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for respondents has also not disputed the same.

¶20

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file with their able assistance.

¶21

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:-

¶22

“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

¶23

RITU SHARMA 2025.05.15 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

¶25

CWP-11593-2025

¶26

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.”

¶27