Kulbir Singh V. Income Tax Officer OSD Ward Mohali 1 and Others

CWP/37942/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the challenge by Kulbir Singh against various notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Officer, OSD Ward Mohali 1, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-2017. The petitioner contested the jurisdiction of the issuing authority, citing a CBDT circular that specified the National Faceless Assessment Centre as the sole body authorized to issue notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court referenced similar cases, Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, where it was held that the faceless assessment scheme applies from the stage of issuance of show cause notice under Section 148, thereby invalidating any such notices issued by the jurisdictional officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 824404 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: URVASHI DHUGGA
• Assessee Lawyers: TARANG GOYAL
• Keywords: Assessment Order; CBDT Circular; Faceless assessment; Jurisdiction; Notice; Penalty notice
• Section: 147; 148; 144B; 151A

Judgement Text

"1 CWP-37942-2025 143 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-37942-2025 Date of Decision: December 23, 2025 KULBIR SINGH .....Petitioner Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD WARD MOHALI 1 AND OTHERS ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Tarang Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing counsel for the respondents – Income Tax Department. **** LISA GILL, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 06.04.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961) for the Assessment year 2016-2017; assessment order dated 17.03.2025 under Section 147 of the Act 1961; penalty notice dated 21.04.2025, demand notice dated 23.09.2025; penalty order dated 23.09.2025 and all subsequent proceedings 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. Printed from counselvise.com RITU SHARMA 2025.12.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-37942-2025 2. 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. 3. 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 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 Printed from counselvise.com RITU SHARMA 2025.12.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-37942-2025 statutory provisions, thus, office memorandum or any other instruction issued by Board or any other authority cannot be relied upon.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not dispute that the issue involved is covered in favour of petitioner in view of abovesaid decisions. 5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, 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. 6. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (LISA GILL) JUDGE (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) December 23, 2025 JUDGE Rts Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Printed from counselvise.com RITU SHARMA 2025.12.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "