POOJA PURI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

CWP/13021/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the challenge to two notices issued to the petitioner, Pooja Puri, under Section 148 and Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contested the jurisdiction of the issuing authority, citing a CBDT circular that designated the NFAC as the sole body authorized to issue such notices. The respondents did not dispute the applicability of the cited precedents. The court referenced similar cases, Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, where it was held that the faceless assessment scheme applies to notices under Sections 148 and 148A, and such notices should be issued by the NFAC.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 756425 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2025
• 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: SAURABH KAPOOR
• Assessee Lawyers: UMANG GOYAL
• Keywords: CBDT; Faceless assessment; Jurisdiction; NFAC; Notice
• Section: 148; 144B; 148A(b); 151A

Judgement Text

"1 CWP-13021-2025 120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13021-2025 Date of Decision: May 09, 2025 Pooja Puri .....Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Ambala and others ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Umang Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for the respondents. **** LISA GILL, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 12.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, 1961. Petitioner has challenged notice dated 12.04.2024 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. 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 RITU SHARMA 2025.05.15 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-13021-2025 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. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents has also not disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file with their able assistance. 5. 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 RITU SHARMA 2025.05.15 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-13021-2025 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.” 6. 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. 7. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (LISA GILL) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) May 09, 2025 JUDGE Rts Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RITU SHARMA 2025.05.15 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "