SHREE JAGANNATH RICE MILL PRIVATE LIMITED, vs. UNION OF INDIA

CGHC010163152023

2026:CGHC:30272

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 154 of 2023 1 - Shree Jagannath Rice Mill Private Limited, Through Director Satyaban Agrawal, S/o Shri Geeta Ram Agrawal Aged About 51 Yrs, R/o. Shop No.8, Radha Mohan Complex, Bhaisthan, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi 2 - Chief Commissioner Of Income - Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Assistant Commissioner Of Income - Tax Officer, Circle - 1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - National Faceless Assessment Unit, Through Pr. Commissioner Of Income - Tax, Nfac, New Delhi

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner

: Mr. Rishabh Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. S. Rajeshwara Rao, Advocate For Respondent No.1/UOI : Mr.Abhishek Banjare, CGC For Respondents/Income Tax : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, on behalf of Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.07.2026 1. It is to be noted that the petitioner has come before this Court primarily against the order passed under Section 148(A)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein their objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 have been rejected. It is also to be noted that the

2 Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) and Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in (2022) 138 taxmann.com 64, has finally decided the issue with regard to the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax, 1961 from 1st April, 2021 till 30th June, 2021. 2. In light of the above, I am of the view that the order(s) passed under Section 148(A)(d) of the Income Tax, 1961, any other consequential proceedings, are required to be quashed and set aside with a direction upon the Assessing Officer to allow the petitioner to once again file objections, and thereafter, dispose of the objections in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Rajeev Bansal (supra). 3. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise new objections, including jurisdictional ones and rely upon other judgments of the Apex Court as applicable. These objections should be filed by the petitioner within a period of 90 days. The authority shall thereafter grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law. 4. It is made clear that the assessee shall also be at liberty to pursue all the rights and remedies in accordance with law, except the issues that have been concluded in the judgments of Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Rajeev Bansal (supra). 5. With regard to the orders passed under Section 148(A)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that may have been passed beyond time as observed by the

3 Supreme Court in paragraphs 112, 113 and 114 of Rajeev Bansal (supra), it is made clear that the observations made therein shall apply. 6. With the above observation(s) and direction(s), the writ petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

Judge Rekha