JINDAL FINLEASE PVT. LTD. vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6234/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01029854202218 April 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the revenue's concession, agreeing to treat the impugned notice dated 24.06.2021, issued for assessment year 2013-14 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, was in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Court found this concession satisfactory to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition was 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 laid-down procedure. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during these proceedings. No other issues were decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jindal Finlease Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice dated 24.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The respondents were the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and others. The revenue, through its counsel, conceded that the impugned notice 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 Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal. The petitioner's counsel found this concession satisfactory. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 24.06.2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14, should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, in view of the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to have the notice treated as per the Supreme Court's directive. Revenue's Contention: The revenue conceded that the notice should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-6234-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.04.2026 JINDAL FINLEASE PVT. LTD.

... Petitioner VERSUS CBDT AND OTHERS

... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Ms. Divya Suri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel, with

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel, and

Ms. Kavita, Advocate, for the Income Tax Department. * * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

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 Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, the impugned notice dated 24.06.2021, 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 senior counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent- 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 it, in accordance with law.

RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.05.01 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

CWP-6234-2022 (O&M)

-2-

Other misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.

( (DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE

(LAPITA BANERJI)

JUDGE

18.04.2026 Rajender

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.05.01 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →