HARBHAJAN SINGH KAHLON vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/4300/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01025803202317 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned notice dated 26.05.2022. The decision was based on the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Limited, which was subsequently followed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had noted the Revenue's admission that for assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped because they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Since the notice in question was dated 25.06.2021, it squarely fell within the scope of this concession. The High Court found no further adjudication necessary given this fair stand by the respondent and the Supreme Court's precedent. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harbhajan Singh Kahlon, sought to quash a notice dated 26.05.2022 issued by the Income Tax Department under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment in Deepak Steel and Power Limited vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors. In that judgment, the Supreme Court, referencing a three-judge bench decision in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, noted the Revenue's concession that for assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The notice in the present case was dated 25.06.2021.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 26.05.2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2015-16, is liable to be quashed in light of the Supreme Court's observations in Deepak Steel and Power Limited's case. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice should be quashed based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Deepak Steel and Power Limited, which followed the concession made by the Revenue in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal. This concession stated that for assessment year 2015-2016, notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, should be dropped as they fall outside the prescribed completion period under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Revenue's Contention: The respondent-Income Tax Department fairly conceded that the petitioner's case is covered by the Supreme Court's observations in Deepak Steel and Power Limited's case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-4300-2023 (O&M) 210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-4300-2023 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.09.2026 Harbhajan Singh Kahlon ...Petitioner Versus Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent(s)-revenue. DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(Oral)

1.

Through the instant petition the petitioner seeks quashing of notice dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure P-6) pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16, issued to the petitioner by the respondent-Income Tax Department under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In support of the petitioner’s claim, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following paragraphs of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court dated 02.04.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No.5177 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No.5632/2023)-Deepak Steel and Power Limited vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors: - “4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus: - “19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.”

5.

As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be -1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.22 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-4300-2023 (O&M) dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021.”

3.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Income Tax Department very fairly concedes that the petitioner’s case would be covered in his favour by the afore quoted observations of the Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Limited’s case (supra).

4.

In the light of the above fair stand taken by learned counsel for the respondent-Income Tax Department and in terms of the afore quoted observations by the Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Limited’s case (supra), we allow the present petition resulting in the quashing of the impugned notice dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure P-6).

5.

No costs. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 17.09.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No -2- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.22 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →