Radha Sehgal V. Income Tax Officer and others

CWP/33931/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a challenge to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. The petitioner, Radha Sehgal, contested the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer, Palampur, to issue the notice, citing a CBDT circular that designated the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) as the sole authority for such actions. The petitioner referenced previous judgments that supported her position. The respondent acknowledged the applicability of these precedents but noted a procedural transfer of the petitioner's PAN to Ludhiana after the notice was issued. The court, aligning with the cited precedents, ruled in favor of the petitioner, invalidating the notice and any subsequent proceedings based on it.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 830414 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2026
• 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: RANVIJAYSINGH; VIDUL KAPOOR
• Assessee Lawyers: VISHAV GUPTA
• Keywords: CBDT; Faceless assessment; Jurisdiction; NFAC; Notice
• Section: 148; 151A

Judgement Text

"CWP-33931 of 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-33931 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.01.2026 Radha Sehgal ..... Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer and others ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsel for respondent- Department. **** LISA GILL, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 07.05.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’), for the Assessment Year 2021-2022 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. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Printed from counselvise.com SANJAY KHAN 2026.01.21 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-33931 of 2025 (O&M) -2- 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, 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. It is submitted that 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 Printed from counselvise.com SANJAY KHAN 2026.01.21 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-33931 of 2025 (O&M) -3- 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 or any other instruction issued by Board or any other authority cannot be relied upon.” 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Department, on instructions from Mr. Kunal Kumar, Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Ludhiana, submits that PAN of petitioner was transferred to Ludhiana on 24.10.2025, though, notice under Section 148 of Act 1961 had been issued by Income Tax Officer, Ward, Palampur. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not dispute that 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. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (LISA GILL) JUDGE (RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI) 15.01.2026 JUDGE s.khan Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Printed from counselvise.com SANJAY KHAN 2026.01.21 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh "