KAILASH AGRAWAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WPT/35/2018HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01004614201817 June 2026Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court considered the submissions made by both parties. The revenue's counsel pointed out the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appellate authority and requested a direction for expeditious disposal of the appeal. The Court, taking these submissions into account, dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The petitioner was granted 30 days to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority, and if filed, the appellate authority was directed to decide it expeditiously after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. No decision was made on the merits of the reassessment proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kailash Agrawal, proprietor of M/s Balaji Enterprises and Mantu Transport, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The petition challenged a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent reassessment order. The petitioner sought to quash these actions, arguing that the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and based on a change of opinion. The respondents, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and others, contended that an efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner. The procedural history involves the issuance of the Section 148 notice and the passing of the reassessment order, which are the subject of the challenge.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, through the notice under Section 148, are without jurisdiction and based on a change of opinion? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 147 and Section 148). Assessee's Contention: The reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction as they are based on a change of opinion. The petitioner seeks to quash the notice under Section 148 and all subsequent proceedings, as well as the reassessment order. Revenue's Contention: There is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by preferring an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 2026:CGHC:24745 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 35 of 2018  Kailash Agrawal S/o Late Shri Puranmal Agrawal Aged About 54 Years Prop. M/s Balaji Enterprises And Mantu Transport Khlindi Kunj Kabir Chowk Police Station Jutemill Thana Raigarh Chhattisgarh. P I N , 496001 ... Petitioner versus 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Aaykar Bhawan Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax , Range - 1 Mahima Complex Vyapar Vihar , Police Station Tarbahar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3. Income Tax Officer - 3 Aaykar Bhawan Chakradhara Nagar District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. S.R. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Kumarani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.06 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 to call for the relevant records of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 to quash the notice u/s.148 of the Act [Annexure-P/1(a)] and all proceedings following said notice. 10.3 to declare that the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s.147 through impugned notice u/s.148 of the Act are without jurisdiction, being based on SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.06.19 10:23:49 +0530 2 change of opinion. 10.4 to quash the re-assessment order [Annexure- P/1(b)] passed on the basis of notice u/s.148 of the Act issued without jurisdiction.
10.

5 to stay operation of impugned order [Annexure-P/1(b)] till disposal of present petition. 10.6 to pass such other and/ or further order and/or orders as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents would submit that there is efficacious alternative remedy available in favour of the petitioner. He may prefer appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] according to the provisions of Section 246A of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. At this stage, Mr. Rao would seek permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach appellate authority. However, he would pray that a direction may be issued to the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously.

4.

Heard.

5.

Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by respective Advocates, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn and the petitioner is granted 30 days time to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. If such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner, the appellate authority shall decide it expeditiously after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties.

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →