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.
