SHYAM SUNDER KHANDELWAL S/O LATE DAMODAR LAL KHANDELWAL vs. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court quashed the notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court relied on a previous decision by a coordinate bench in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which had quashed similar notices and orders. The Court observed that the primary issue was the validity of the Section 148 notice and that subsequent proceedings had not been taken. The Court stated that if the respondents chose to initiate proceedings under Section 153(c), the petitioner's subsequent arguments would not be applicable. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 was set aside and quashed. The liberty granted to the Department in the previous judgment would be available only if it was permissible in law. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Shyam Sunder Khandelwal, filed two writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the procedure adopted was erroneous and that proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153(c) of the Act. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that even under Section 153(c), proceedings could not be issued due to laches and the interpretation of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Central Board of Direct Taxes, accepted notice. The Court noted that a coordinate bench had previously decided a similar issue in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid, considering the petitioner's contention that the procedure adopted was erroneous and that proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153(c) of the Act. 2. Whether proceedings under Section 153(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be initiated against the petitioner, given the arguments of laches and the interpretation of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was erroneous and that the revenue should have proceeded under Section 153(c). The petitioner further contended that even under Section 153(c), proceedings were barred by laches and the revival of issues under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that the respondents accepted notice but does not detail their specific arguments against the petitioner's contentions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 153(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 17/09/2025
Issue notice to the respondents.
Mr. Siddharth Bapna accepts notice on behalf of respondents.
Service is complete.
The issue raised in the present writ petitions is no more res integra as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of cases, Income Tax: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019 has decided the issue on 19.03.2024 wherein the following order was passed:- “40. In view of above discussion the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders are quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The first ground of challenge to initiation of proceedings under Section 148 is being accepted and there is no need to dilate upon other grounds raised for challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.
In would be appropriate to mention that during the pendency of the writ petitions there was interim protection in favour of the petitioners.”
In the present case too, the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 1961’) has been challenged on the ground that the procedure adopted was erroneous and at best the respondents could have initiated proceedings under Section 153(c) of Act of 1961, however, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in addition to the aforesaid terms, that even under Section 153(c) of Act of 1961 the notice cannot be issued in the present case as it would be hit by latches and learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
[2025:RJ-JP:38020-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-12312/2022] Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal: SC 2024 INSC 754 HEENA/MAHIMA/78-79
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
