PRERNA KHETRAPAL vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the issues raised in the writ petitions are substantially covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others v. Ashish Agarwal. Accordingly, the petitions were disposed of by treating the impugned notices as Show Cause Notices in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act. The Court directed that the respective Assessing Officers shall, within 30 days from the date of the order, provide to the assessees the information and material collected by the Revenue. The assessees would then have two weeks thereafter to reply to these Show Cause Notices. The Court explicitly stated that all defenses available to the assessees, including those under Section 149 of the IT Act, and all rights and contentions available to both the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law, shall continue to be available. The judgment did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
What were the facts?
These are multiple writ petitions filed before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The petitioners are various individuals and a private limited company, identified as assessees. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitions challenge notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The procedural history indicates that these petitions were filed seeking relief against these notices. The core of the matter revolves around the validity and treatment of these notices, particularly in light of a Supreme Court judgment.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were subject to challenge in these writ petitions, should be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148 and Section 148A of the IT Act). Assessee's contention: The issues raised are substantially covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others v. Ashish Agarwal, and therefore, the petitions should be disposed of in light of the directions therein. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Judgment.
Paragraphs 26 and 27 of Ashish Agarwal (supra) reads as follows:
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.T. No. 524/2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and substituted as under: (i) The impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which were issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before the various respective High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The assessing officer shall, within thirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information and material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assesees can reply to the show cause notices within two weeks thereafter; (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority under section 148A(a) is hereby dispensed with as a one time measure vis à vis those notices which have been issued under section 148 of the unamended Act from 01.04.2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543 3rd January, 2023
2-6 WP-159-22 & ORS.DOC High Courts. Even otherwise as observed hereinabove holding any enquiry with the prior approval of specified authority is not mandatory but it is for the concerned Assessing Officers to hold any enquiry, if required; (iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of section 148A(d) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; Thereafter after following the procedure as required under section 148A may issue notice under section 148 (as substituted); (iv) All defences which may be available to the assesses including those available under section 149 of the IT Act and all rights and contentions which may be available to the concerned assessees and Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be available.
The present order shall be applicable PAN INDIA and all judgments and orders passed by different High Courts on the issue and under which similar notices which were issued after 01.04.2021 issued under section 148 of the Act are set aside and shall be governed by the present order and shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The present order is passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to avoid any further appeals by the Revenue on the very issue by challenging similar judgments and orders, with a view not to burden this Court with approximately 9000 appeals. We also observe that present order shall also govern the pending writ petitions, pending before various High Courts in which similar notices under Section 148 of the Act issued after 01.04.2021 are under challenge.
Accordingly, even these petitions are disposed of by treating the impugned notices as Show Cause Notices in terms of Section 148 A (b) of the Income Tax Act. 3rd January, 2023
2-6 WP-159-22 & ORS.DOC
Ms. Linhares states that the respective Assessing Officers shall within 30 days from today provide to the respective Assessees the information and material collected by the Revenue, so that the Assessees can reply to the Show Cause Notices within two weeks after that.
Based on the decision in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and the aforesaid statement, we dispose of these petitions.
There shall be no order for costs.
All concerned to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this order. BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J. M. S. SONAK, J. 3rd January, 2023 MEENA VISHAL BHOIR MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Date: 2023.01.03 16:32:21 +05'30'
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 →- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
