Madan Lal Vs Union of India And Others (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
The proceedings arose from an application seeking modification of an earlier order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The applicant-respondent submitted that, at the time of passing the earlier order, it was not brought to the Court’s notice—nor pleaded in the writ petition—that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had already been disposed of on 19.03.2025. By that appellate order, the assessment order dated 19.05.2023 had been set aside with directions to the Assessing Officer to frame a fresh assessment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, the matter was pending before the Assessing Authority.
An affidavit dated 20.12.2025 filed by the petitioner was taken on record. The petitioner’s counsel explained that omission of these facts in the writ petition was due to an unintentional and inadvertent error and tendered an unconditional apology, which the Court accepted. In view of these circumstances, the Court recalled its earlier order dated 15.09.2025 and restored the writ petition to its original number. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition was taken up for hearing on the same day, and the modification application was disposed of.
In the restored writ petition, the petitioner challenged the notice dated 29.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the approval dated 28.07.2022 under Section 151, the assessment order dated 19.05.2023, and the consequent demand notice dated 19.05.2023 under Section 156, all relating to Assessment Year 2013–14. The challenge was founded on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, contending that, in view of the circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) had exclusive authority to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act.
The petitioner argued that the issue stood covered by earlier decisions of coordinate Benches of the same Court, including Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. It was further pointed out that although not mentioned in the original writ petition, the appellate authority had already set aside the assessment order on 19.03.2025 with directions for a fresh assessment after granting an opportunity of hearing, and the matter was presently pending before the Assessing Authority.
The Court noted that in the cited coordinate Bench decisions, writ petitions raising the same issue had been allowed. In those cases, the Court held that the scheme of faceless assessment, as envisaged under Sections 144B and 151A of the Act read with the notification dated 29.03.2022, applied from the stage of issuance of show cause notice under Sections 148 and 148A. It was observed that issuance of notice under Section 148 by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer would defeat the object of faceless assessment. The Court further reiterated that circulars, office memoranda, or letters issued by departmental authorities could not override clear statutory provisions.
During the present hearing, counsel for the respondents did not dispute that the controversy was squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by the aforesaid decisions of the coordinate Benches.
Considering the undisputed legal position and the binding precedents cited, the Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh. Liberty was thus governed by the same directions as laid down in those cases. All pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. Prayer in this application is for modification of order dated 15.09.2025.
2. Learned counsel for applicant-respondent submits that it was not brought to the notice of this Court by petitioner and neither pleaded in the writ petition that appeal filed by petitioner before CIT (Appeals) stood disposed of on 19.03.2025, wherein assessment order dated 19.05.2023 had been set aside with directions to Assessing Officer to frame fresh assessment after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner. Matter as of now is pending before the Assessing Authority.
3. Affidavit dated 20.12.2025 of petitioner filed in Court today with copy thereof to learned counsel for applicant-respondent is taken on record subject to just exceptions.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is due to unintentional and inadvertent error on the part of petitioner that complete facts are not mentioned in the writ petition. An unconditional apology for the same is tendered. Same is accepted.
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, order dated 15.09.2025 is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number.
6. At request and with consent of learned counsel for parties, writ petition is taken up for hearing today itself.
7. Application is, accordingly, disposed of.
CWP-23963-2025
1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961); approval dated 28.07.2022 under Section 151 of Act 1961; assessment order dated 19.05.2023; demand notice dated 19.05.2023 under Section 156 of Act 1961, for the Assessment year 2013-2014 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 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 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. It is submitted that though not mentioned in the writ petition, appeal filed by petitioner before CIT (Appeals) stood disposed of on 19.03.2025 wherein assessment order dated 19.05.2023 had been set aside with directions to Assessing Officer to frame fresh assessment after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner. Matter is now pending before the Assessing Authority.
3. 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 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.”
4. Learned counsel for respondents does not dispute that the 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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
