ACIT Vs Rudra Alloys Private Limited (Supreme Court of India)
The matter arose from a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging a notice dated 28.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings for Assessment Year 2021-22. The petitioner contended that the authority issuing the notice lacked jurisdiction in view of the CBDT notification dated 29.03.2022 issued under Section 151A, which, according to the petitioner, conferred exclusive authority upon the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue notices under Section 148.
Before the High Court, the petitioner submitted that the issue was already covered by the Coordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. Counsel appearing for the respondents did not dispute that the controversy was governed by those earlier decisions.
The High Court examined the record and noted that the Coordinate Bench had already allowed similar writ petitions while granting liberty to the Revenue to follow the procedure prescribed under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and proceed in accordance with law, if so advised. The Court reproduced paragraph 15 of the judgment in Jatinder Singh Bhangu, which held that the faceless assessment scheme under Section 151A applied from the stage of issuance of the show-cause notice under Sections 148 and 148A, and that clause 3(b) of the notification dated 29.03.2022 expressly extended the faceless assessment scheme to notices issued under Section 148. It further recorded that assessment proceedings commence from the stage of issuance of the show-cause notice and that the object of introducing faceless assessment would be defeated if the show-cause notice under Section 148 were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Coordinate Bench had also held that office memoranda, circulars, instructions and departmental letters could not override statutory provisions, and although circulars are binding on departmental authorities, they do not bind courts. It concluded that the mandate of Sections 144B and 151A read with the notification dated 29.03.2022 was clear and unambiguous and could not be displaced by office memoranda or other administrative instructions.
Following the Coordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, the High Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms, with liberty to the Revenue to proceed in accordance with law. All pending applications were also disposed of. The judgment was delivered on 25.07.2025.
The Revenue challenged the High Court judgment before the Supreme Court in ACIT Vs Rudra Alloys Private Limited.
The Supreme Court condoned the delay, granted leave and recorded the statement of learned counsel appearing for the Revenue that the issues arising in the batch of appeals were squarely covered by the Supreme Court’s earlier orders dated 10.04.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026 and connected matters, read with the order dated 04.05.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6922 of 2026 and connected matters.
Accepting that position, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals in the same terms as those earlier orders. It remitted the matters to the respective jurisdictional High Courts to be decided in light of the aforesaid orders of the Supreme Court. All pending applications were also disposed of.
As a result, the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment was not allowed to attain finality on the basis on which it had been decided. Instead, the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the jurisdictional High Court for fresh consideration in light of its earlier orders dated 10.04.2026 and 04.05.2026.
SEO Title : SC Remands Section 148 Jurisdiction Dispute to High Court for Fresh Decision
SEO Description : SC remitted the Section 148 notice dispute to the High Court for fresh adjudication in light of its earlier orders dated 10.04.2026 and 04.05.2026.
Cases Discussed
- Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CWP No. 21509 of 2023 and other connected matters, decided on 29.07.2024
- Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (Punjab & Haryana High Court), CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided on 19.07.2024
Read HC Judgment in this case: Rudra Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Punjab And Haryana High Court)
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue fairly states that the issues involved in this batch of matters is squarely covered by our order dated 10.04.2026 passed in C.A. No.4716/2026 and connected matters, read with order dated 04.05.2026 passed in C.A. No.6922/2026 and connected matters.
4. The appeals are, thus, disposed of in the same terms. The matters are remitted to the jurisdictional High Courts to be decided in light of the above-cited order(s) of this Court.
5. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
4. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
