CHANDAN BALA JAIN vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NORTH BLOCK- NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2725/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01014018202230 April 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the revenue's concession, made in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, was satisfactory. The impugned notice dated 30.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year 2013-14, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was to be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice, in terms of the procedure laid down under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all possible pleas and defenses available to her during these proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Chandan Bala Jain, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana challenging a notice dated 30.03.2021, dispatched on or after 01.04.2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The respondents are the Central Board of Direct Taxes and others, representing the Income Tax Department. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned notice, which the petitioner contested.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year 2013-14, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, sought to have the impugned notice treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the revenue conceded that in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, the impugned notice should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No. 279 (20)

CWP No.2725 of 2022 (O&M)

Date of decision: 30.04.2026

Chandan Bala Jain .....Petitioner

Versus

Central Board of Direct Taxes and others .....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Mr. Pankaj Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Divya Suri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel,

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel and

Ms. Nikita Garg, Junior Standing Counsel

for the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department.

* * *

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1)

At the outset, learned counsel for the revenue concedes that in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year 2013- 14, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short-the Act) be treated as notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. (2)

The above concession satisfies learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent(s)-revenue to proceed from the stage of the afore notice, in terms of the procedure laid down under Section 148A(b) of the Act. (3)

Needless to add that in the course of the afore proceedings the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all possible pleas/defences that may be available to her, in accordance with law.

( DEEPAK SIBAL )

JUDGE

30.04.2026

( LAPITA BANERJI ) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No

Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2026.05.05 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. 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 →