Madan Lal V. Union of India and Others

CWP/23963/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Madan Lal, the petitioner, challenging various notices and an assessment order related to the Assessment Year 2013-2014 under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the jurisdiction of the issuing authority, as per a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specified that only the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) could issue such notices. The petitioner had previously faced an assessment order which was set aside by the CIT (Appeals), directing a fresh assessment. The High Court's decision referenced similar cases, Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, where the court had ruled in favor of the petitioners under similar circumstances, emphasizing the application of the faceless assessment scheme from the stage of issuance of show cause notice under Section 148.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 824385 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KAPOOR
• Assessee Lawyers: ARMAAN CAJLA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Jurisdiction; Modification of Order; Notice under section 148
• Section: 148; 151; 156

Judgement Text

"1 CM-18581-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-23963-2025 103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-18581-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-23963-2025 Date of Decision: December 24, 2025 MADAN LAL .....Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: Mr. Armaan Cajla, Advocate for the non-applicant/petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. standing counsel for applicant-respondent. **** LISA GILL, J. CM-18581-CWP-2025 1. Prayer in this application is for modification of order dated 15.09.2025. 2. Learned counsel for applicant-respondent submits that it was not brought to the notice of this Court by petitioner and neither pleaded in the writ petition that appeal filed by petitioner before CIT (Appeals) stood disposed of on 19.03.2025, wherein assessment order dated 19.05.2023 had been set aside with directions to Assessing Officer to frame fresh assessment after affording Printed from counselvise.com RITU SHARMA 2025.12.24 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CM-18581-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-23963-2025 opportunity of hearing to petitioner. Matter as of now is pending before the Assessing Authority. 3. Affidavit dated 20.12.2025 of petitioner filed in Court today with copy thereof to learned counsel for applicant-respondent is taken on record subject to just exceptions. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is due to unintentional and inadvertent error on the part of petitioner that complete facts are not mentioned in the writ petition. An unconditional apology for the same is tendered. Same is accepted. 5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, order dated 15.09.2025 is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number. 6. At request and with consent of learned counsel for parties, writ petition is taken up for hearing today itself. 7. Application is, accordingly, disposed of. CWP-23963-2025 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961); approval dated 28.07.2022 under Section 151 of Act 1961; assessment order dated 19.05.2023; demand notice dated 19.05.2023 under Section 156 of Act 1961, for the Assessment year 2013-2014 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 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CM-18581-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-23963-2025 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. It is submitted that though not mentioned in the writ petition, appeal filed by petitioner before CIT (Appeals) stood disposed of on 19.03.2025 wherein assessment order dated 19.05.2023 had been set aside with directions to Assessing Officer to frame fresh assessment after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner. Matter is now pending before the Assessing Authority. 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 Printed from counselvise.com RITU SHARMA 2025.12.24 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CM-18581-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-23963-2025 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.” 4. Learned counsel for respondents does 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 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) December 24, 2025 JUDGE Rts Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Printed from counselvise.com RITU SHARMA 2025.12.24 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "