TIRATH RAM SURINDER PAUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2643/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01016357202309 September 2026Bench: 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 notices dated 09.04.2021 and 27.07.2022. The decision was based on the concession made by the revenue before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, which was reiterated in Deepak Steel and Power Limited vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors. The Supreme Court had acknowledged that for the 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 High Court found that the notices in question were issued after April 1, 2021, and therefore, in light of the revenue's concession and the Supreme Court's observations, the notices were quashed. The operative direction was the quashing of the notices. No other issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tirath Ram Surinder Paul, challenged notices dated 09.04.2021 and 27.07.2022 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Phagwara, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that their case was covered by a Supreme Court decision in Deepak Steel and Power Limited vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors. This decision referenced a three-judge bench ruling in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, which stated 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 prescribed period under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The revenue's counsel conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by this Supreme Court observation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 09.04.2021 and 27.07.2022, for the assessment year 2015-16, are liable to be quashed in light of the Supreme Court's concession in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, as applied in Deepak Steel and Power Limited vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that their case was fully covered in their favour by the Supreme Court's observations in Deepak Steel and Power Limited's case. They relied on the Supreme Court's reference to the concession made by the revenue in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, specifically paragraph 19(f), which stated that for assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue's counsel fairly conceded that the petitioner's case would be covered in their favour by the aforequoted observations of the Supreme Court 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No. 216 (4) CWP-2643-2023 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.09.2026

Tirath Ram Surinder Paul

.…. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Phagwara and others ..... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent(s)-revenue.

* * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1.

Through this petition, the petitioner challenges notices dated 09.04.2021 and 27.07.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16 issued to the petitioner by the respondents-revenue under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s case is fully covered in its favour by the following observations made by the Supreme Court on 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: - SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.09.10 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

CWP-2643-2023

[ 2 ]

“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 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.”

Learned counsel for the respondent(s)-revenue very fairly concedes that the petitioner’s case would be covered in its 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(s)-revenue 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 notices dated 09.04.2021 and 27.07.2022. 5.

No costs.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

[DEEPAK SIBAL]

JUDGE

09.09.2026

[SUNISH BINDLISH] shamsher

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.09.10 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →