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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2880/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01014023202230 April 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the concession made by the learned counsel for the revenue is accepted. 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 March 30, 2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after April 1, 2021, for the assessment year 2013-14, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, shall be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, following the prescribed procedure. The petitioner is granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during these proceedings. No specific issue was left undecided; the matter was resolved based on the concession and the Supreme Court's precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vandana Jain, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana challenging a notice dated March 30, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The notice was dispatched to the petitioner on or after April 1, 2021. The respondents are the Central Board of Direct Taxes and others, representing the Income Tax Department. The petition was filed seeking appropriate directions regarding the validity and procedure followed in issuing the notice. The procedural history relevant to the decision is the issuance of the impugned notice and the subsequent challenge through the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 30, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2013-14, dispatched on or after April 1, 2021, 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 learned Senior Advocate Mr. Pankaj Jain, implicitly sought this reclassification by accepting the revenue's concession. The petitioner was represented and had the opportunity to raise all pleas. Revenue's Contention: 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 dated March 30, 2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after April 1, 2021, for the assessment year 2013-14, under Section 148 of the Act, 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 (27)

CWP No.2880 of 2022 (O&M)

Date of decision: 30.04.2026

Vandana 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 →