MANISH BAGRODIA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CWP/11039/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a challenge to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, which the petitioner, Manish Bagrodia, contested on the grounds of jurisdictional error. The petitioner argued that according to a circular dated 29.03.2022 from the Central Board of Direct Taxes, only the National Faceless Assessment Centre had the authority to issue such notices. The court referenced similar cases, Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, where it was held that the issuance of such notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer contravened the statutory provisions governing faceless assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 671012 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2025
• 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
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHINAV NARANG
• Keywords: Central Board of Direct Taxes; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Notice
• Section: 148; 151A

Judgement Text

"CWP-11039-2025 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11039-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-20.05.2025 MANISH BAGRODIA … Petitioner Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN Present:- Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SUDHIR SINGH J .(Oral) Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”). Petitioner has challenged notice dated 27.03.2025 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 (Annexure P-2) of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, wherein, it has been specifically enumerated that National Faceless Assessment Centre has exclusive power to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 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, passed in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, GAURAV SOROT 2025.05.29 11:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11039-2025 (O&M) -:2:- 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. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the file with his able assistance. 4. 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 readwith notification dated 29.03.2022 issued thereunder is quite lucid. There is no ambiguity in the language of statutory provisions, thus, office memorandum GAURAV SOROT 2025.05.29 11:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11039-2025 (O&M) -:3:- or any other instruction issued by Board or any other authority cannot be relied upon.” 5. In view of the 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 application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUDHIR SINGH ) JUDGE (ALOK JAIN) 20.05.2025 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2025.05.29 11:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "