My reassessment notice under section 148 came from my own jurisdictional assessing officer, not through the faceless system. Is that notice good?
No. The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed section 148 notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, holding they contravene section 151A read with section 144B and the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 notified on 29 March 2022. Clause 3(b) of the scheme requires issuance of a section 148 notice through automated allocation and in a faceless manner. The Department's reliance on a CBDT office memorandum of 20 February 2023 and a Systems Directorate letter of 19 January 2024 failed: instructions and circulars can supplement but cannot supplant statutory provisions. Liberty was given to proceed in accordance with law.
Decided by the High Court (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Division Bench — Sheel Nagu CJ and Jagmohan Bansal J (author)) on 2024-07-19, reported as Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:090942-DB; CWP-15745-2024 and CWP-15791-2024 (Punjab and Haryana High Court). It bears on section 151A, section 148, section 144B, section 148A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Reassessment & Reopening and Faceless Assessment & Appeals matters.
This is the Punjab and Haryana High Court joining the Bombay, Telangana and Gauhati High Courts on the most heavily litigated reassessment point of recent years — whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer retains any power to issue a section 148 notice after the 2022 faceless scheme. The Court answers no, and gives two reasons that travel beyond this issue: assessment proceedings commence at the stage of the show-cause notice, so the faceless requirement bites from section 148A onwards; and departmental circulars, office memoranda and Systems letters bind the authorities but not the courts, and cannot override the statute. It expressly declines to follow the Calcutta High Court's contrary view in Triton Overseas. The judgment also records that the Department's special leave petition against the Telangana decision was pending, so a practitioner relying on this line should check where that has reached.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner is a farmer owning agricultural land who filed his return for assessment year 2020-21 on 29 September 2020, within time. During the previous year he had received compensation on the acquisition of his land. On 28 March 2024 the Income-tax Officer, his Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, issued a notice under section 148 saying the Department had information of income escaping assessment, and that the notice was issued after obtaining prior approval of the Principal Commissioner under section 151, the approval being dated 22 March 2024. He was asked to file a return within the period stated in the notice. On 21 June 2024 he received an intimation that his case had been selected for faceless assessment and the proceedings would be conducted under section 144B. He challenged the notice and the intimation under Articles 226 and 227, contending that after the introduction of the faceless scheme under section 151A the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer could not issue a section 148 notice, and that the section 151 approval showed no application of mind. A companion petition by Jyoti Sareen raised the same issues and was disposed of by the same order. The Department relied on a CBDT office memorandum dated 20 February 2023 and a letter dated 19 January 2024 from the Directorate of Income Tax (Systems), and on the Calcutta High Court's contrary decision in Triton Overseas.
Both writ petitions were allowed. The notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under section 148 were quashed, with liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The Court subscribed to the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies, the Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy and the Gauhati High Court in Ram Narayan Sah, and did not follow the Calcutta High Court in Triton Overseas. On section 151A and the notified scheme, issuance of a notice under section 148 must be through automated allocation and in a faceless manner, and the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has no power to issue it. The office memorandum and the Systems letter relied on by the Department could not be given effect against the statute.
Section 151A empowers the Central Government to make a scheme for assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, for the issuance of a notice under section 148, for enquiries, show-cause notices and orders under section 148A and for sanction under section 151, so as to eliminate the interface between the authority and the assessee and to introduce team-based work with dynamic jurisdiction. The scheme notified on 29 March 2022 does exactly that: clause 3 provides that assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147 and issuance of notice under section 148 shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with the Board's risk management strategy, and in a faceless manner to the extent provided in section 144B. Reading section 151A with that clause, the Court held the faceless scheme applies from the stage of the show-cause notice under sections 148 and 148A. It is settled that assessment proceedings commence when the show-cause notice is issued, and the object of faceless assessment would be defeated if that notice could still be issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Department's answer rested entirely on departmental instructions. The Court applied the settled rule that circulars, instructions and letters issued by the Board or any other authority cannot override statutory provisions; they bind the authorities but not the courts, and they may supplement but cannot supplant the statute. Since the language of sections 144B and 151A and of the notification was unambiguous, there was no room to rely on the office memorandum at all.
Instructions/circulars can supplement but cannot supplant statutory provisions.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed section 148 notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, holding they contravene section 151A read with section 144B and the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 notified on 29 March 2022. Clause 3(b) of the scheme requires issuance of a section 148 notice through automated allocation and in a faceless manner. The Department's reliance on a CBDT office memorandum of 20 February 2023 and a Systems Directorate letter of 19 January 2024 failed: instructions and circulars can supplement but cannot supplant statutory provisions. Liberty was given to proceed in accordance with law. This was decided by the High Court (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Division Bench — Sheel Nagu CJ and Jagmohan Bansal J (author)) and bears on section 151A, section 148, section 144B, section 148A of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:090942-DB; CWP-15745-2024 and CWP-15791-2024 (Punjab and Haryana High Court). This is the Punjab and Haryana High Court joining the Bombay, Telangana and Gauhati High Courts on the most heavily litigated reassessment point of recent years — whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer retains any power to issue a section 148 notice after the 2022 faceless scheme. The Court answers no, and gives two reasons that travel beyond this issue: assessment proceedings commence at the stage of the show-cause notice, so the faceless requirement bites from section 148A onwards; and departmental circulars, office memoranda and Systems letters bind the authorities but not the courts, and cannot override the statute. It expressly declines to follow the Calcutta High Court's contrary view in Triton Overseas. The judgment also records that the Department's special leave petition against the Telangana decision was pending, so a practitioner relying on this line should check where that has reached. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Check on the face of the section 148 or 148A notice which officer issued it; if it is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer rather than through automated allocation, take the jurisdictional objection at once.
The petitioner is a farmer owning agricultural land who filed his return for assessment year 2020-21 on 29 September 2020, within time. During the previous year he had received compensation on the acquisition of his land. On 28 March 2024 the Income-tax Officer, his Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, issued a notice under section 148 saying the Department had information of income escaping assessment, and that the notice was issued after obtaining prior approval of the Principal Commissioner under section 151, the approval being dated 22 March 2024. He was asked to file a return within the period stated in the notice. On 21 June 2024 he received an intimation that his case had been selected for faceless assessment and the proceedings would be conducted under section 144B. He challenged the notice and the intimation under Articles 226 and 227, contending that after the introduction of the faceless scheme under section 151A the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer could not issue a section 148 notice, and that the section 151 approval showed no application of mind. A companion petition by Jyoti Sareen raised the same issues and was disposed of by the same order. The Department relied on a CBDT office memorandum dated 20 February 2023 and a letter dated 19 January 2024 from the Directorate of Income Tax (Systems), and on the Calcutta High Court's contrary decision in Triton Overseas. The matter was decided on 2024-07-19 by the High Court (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Division Bench — Sheel Nagu CJ and Jagmohan Bansal J (author)). On those facts the High Court held as follows. Both writ petitions were allowed. The notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under section 148 were quashed, with liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The Court subscribed to the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies, the Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy and the Gauhati High Court in Ram Narayan Sah, and did not follow the Calcutta High Court in Triton Overseas. On section 151A and the notified scheme, issuance of a notice under section 148 must be through automated allocation and in a faceless manner, and the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has no power to issue it. The office memorandum and the Systems letter relied on by the Department could not be given effect against the statute.
Section 151A empowers the Central Government to make a scheme for assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, for the issuance of a notice under section 148, for enquiries, show-cause notices and orders under section 148A and for sanction under section 151, so as to eliminate the interface between the authority and the assessee and to introduce team-based work with dynamic jurisdiction. The scheme notified on 29 March 2022 does exactly that: clause 3 provides that assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147 and issuance of notice under section 148 shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with the Board's risk management strategy, and in a faceless manner to the extent provided in section 144B. Reading section 151A with that clause, the Court held the faceless scheme applies from the stage of the show-cause notice under sections 148 and 148A. It is settled that assessment proceedings commence when the show-cause notice is issued, and the object of faceless assessment would be defeated if that notice could still be issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Department's answer rested entirely on departmental instructions. The Court applied the settled rule that circulars, instructions and letters issued by the Board or any other authority cannot override statutory provisions; they bind the authorities but not the courts, and they may supplement but cannot supplant the statute. Since the language of sections 144B and 151A and of the notification was unambiguous, there was no room to rely on the office memorandum at all. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Instructions/circulars can supplement but cannot supplant statutory provisions."
It was decided by the High Court on 2024-07-19 and is reported as Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:090942-DB; CWP-15745-2024 and CWP-15791-2024 (Punjab and Haryana High Court). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 151A, section 148, section 144B, section 148A, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. Both writ petitions were allowed. The notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under section 148 were quashed, with liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The Court subscribed to the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies, the Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy and the Gauhati High Court in Ram Narayan Sah, and did not follow the Calcutta High Court in Triton Overseas. On section 151A and the notified scheme, issuance of a notice under section 148 must be through automated allocation and in a faceless manner, and the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has no power to issue it. The office memorandum and the Systems letter relied on by the Department could not be given effect against the statute. It arises in Reassessment & Reopening and Faceless Assessment & Appeals matters, on section 151A, section 148, section 144B, section 148A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Division Bench — Sheel Nagu CJ and Jagmohan Bansal J (author). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Raise the point in a writ petition rather than only in the reassessment proceedings — this is a question of jurisdiction, and the High Courts have entertained it under Article 226. Meet the Department's reliance on the CBDT office memorandum and the Systems letter with the proposition that instructions cannot supplant the statute and the notified scheme. Track the Supreme Court proceedings against the Telangana judgment before advising that the notice is void, and preserve limitation in case the Department is permitted to reissue.
High Courts differ on this point. A reportable Division Bench decision of July 2024. The judgment itself records that the Department's special leave petition against the Telangana High Court's decision on the same point, SLP (Civil) Diary No. 2041/2024, was pending with notice issued, and that the Calcutta High Court has taken a contrary view; the outcome of those proceedings was not checked. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The Court decided the case on the section 151A ground alone. The second challenge, that the section 151 approval dated 22 March 2024 was given without application of mind and without disclosing the underlying information, was not separately decided. The source page carries no reporter citation, so the neutral citation and case numbers are given instead. The judgment does not say what the escaping income was said to be beyond the compensation received on land acquisition. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Both writ petitions were allowed. The notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under section 148 were quashed, with liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The Court subscribed to the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies, the Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy and the Gauhati High Court in Ram Narayan Sah, and did not follow the Calcutta High Court in Triton Overseas. On section 151A and the notified scheme, issuance of a notice under section 148 must be through automated allocation and in a faceless manner, and the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has no power to issue it. The office memorandum and the Systems letter relied on by the Department could not be given effect against the statute.
TaxSphere, “Jatinder Singh Bhangu v Union of India”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/jatinder-singh-bhangu-v-union-of-india/ (validity last checked 2026-08-29)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The High Court quashed my s.148 notice because the ward officer issued it instead of the faceless unit. Does that judgment still stand?
Your s.148 notice came from your own local officer, not from the faceless unit. Does that matter?
My section 148A(d) order and section 148 notice came from the local assessing officer after the 2022 faceless schemes started. Can I have them quashed on that ground alone?
Can the jurisdictional AO issue my s.148 notice, or must reassessment go through the faceless route?
