Disposed¶24

Malkit Singh v. Pr Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Nwr

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Aug 2025CWP/17048/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 notice; NFAC versus Jurisdictional Assessing Officer; faceless assessment scheme; Section 151A; Section 144B; Clause 3(b) notification dated 29.03.2022; Income Tax Act 1961; assessment year 2017-18; disposal in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No.15745 of 2024, 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No.21509 of 2023, 29.07.2024); liberty to revenue to follow statutory procedure; Punjab & Haryana High Court; CWP No.17048 of 2024; decision dated 13.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (decided 29.07.2024); carrying the relief granted in those matters — liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. ¶24

Malkit Singh Vs Pr Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Nwr — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 08.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2017-18 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of through the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is illegal and without jurisdiction and should be set aside.

¶14

Court's answer

Present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the Division Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No.15745 of 2024, decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No.21509 of 2023, decided on 29.07.2024).

¶25

Ratio / Principle

By disposing of the petition in terms of the coordinate Bench decisions, the relief follows those matters: liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised, on the footing that a Section 148 notice must be issued through NFAC and not by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

¶19

Key takeaways

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Lisa Gill and Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ.) dated 13.08.2025 in CWP No.17048 of 2024. Petition by the LR of deceased assessee Malkit Singh confined to setting aside a notice dated 08.04.2024 issued under Section 148, Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-18 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of through NFAC; respondents conceded the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it was required to be issued through NFAC. Following its Division Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No.15745 of 2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No.21509 of 2023, decided 29.07.2024) — in which, per the extract quoted, the faceless assessment scheme (Sections 144B and 151A read with notification dated 29.03.2022, Clause 3(b)) was held applicable from the stage of Section 148/148A show cause notices, and Board circulars/office memoranda were held incapable of overriding statutory provisions — the Court disposed of the petition in the same terms, leaving liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. Pending applications disposed of accordingly.

¶1

215-5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No.17048 of 2024 Date of Decision: 13.08.2025

¶4

Malkit Singh (since deceased) through his LR

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax NWR and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

¶10

Present:Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate and Mr. Sameesh Bassi, Advocate for petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Standing Counsel, Income Tax Dept. with Ms. Nikita Garg, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

¶13

LISA GILL, J.(Oral)

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioner submit that at this stage, petitioner confines his prayer for setting-aside notice dated 08.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act, 1961’) for the assessment year 2017-18 being illegal and without jurisdiction having been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of having been issued through the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). Reference is made to the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others , passed in CWP No.15745 of 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.

¶15

NEETU RANI 2025.08.22 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

¶16

CWP No.17048 of 2024 -2-

¶17

Learned counsel for respondents fairly accept that notice has been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it was required to be issued through NFAC.

¶18

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

¶19

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 is Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra) reads as under:-

¶20

“ 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

¶21

NEETU RANI 2025.08.22 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

¶22

CWP No.17048 of 2024 -3-

¶23

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.”

¶24

In view of the above, present writ petition is disposed of, in

¶25

terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra), decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), decided on 29.07.2024.

¶26

All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶27

(LISA GILL) JUDGE

¶28

13.08.2025 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) neetu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶29

NEETU RANI 2025.08.22 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

Malkit Singh v. Pr Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Nwr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malkit Singh v. Pr Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Nwr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Cuthbert Winner LLP through Its Partner Vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue

Dalip Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Pankaj Karsanbhai Thakker Vs Union of India and Another

M/S Maa Gauri Shiv Bhole Trading Co. Vs State of Punjab and Others

M/S Aggarwal Industries Vs State of Punjab and Others

Krishna Poultries Vs Income Tax Officer and Ors.