SUMAN KANDOI vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5119/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01026225202218 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 revenue's concession, made in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, was satisfactory. The impugned notice dated 29.06.2021, issued for the assessment year 2014-15 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was to be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b), following the prescribed procedure. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during these proceedings. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Suman Kandoi, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 29.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The respondents are the Central Board of Direct Taxes and others, representing the revenue. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned notice, which the petitioner contested. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh heard the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.06.2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15, 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 & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to have the notice treated as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the revenue conceded that the impugned notice should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, following the Supreme Court's ruling.

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

CWP-5119-2022 Date of Decision: 18.04.2026 SUMAN KANDOI

... Petitioner VERSUS CANTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHERS

... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, 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 & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, the impugned notice dated 29.06.2021 for the assessment year 2014-15, 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.

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 →