CHITKARA EDUCATIONAL TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19662/2021HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01086342202118 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 concession made by the learned counsel for the revenue is satisfactory to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice dated March 31, 2021, in terms of the procedure laid down under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all possible pleas and defenses available to it during these proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued under the old regime for reassessment, when dispatched after the commencement of the new regime, should be treated as notices under Section 148A(b) as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Ashish Agarwal, allowing the assessee to avail the procedural safeguards under the new provisions. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Chitkara Educational Trust, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated March 31, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The notice was dispatched to the petitioner on or after April 1, 2021. The revenue, represented by the Union of India and another, appeared through its counsel. The procedural history involves the issuance of the Section 148 notice, which is the action under challenge.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15, dispatched on or after 01.04.2021, 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 others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: Not explicitly recorded, but the petition was filed seeking relief concerning the impugned notice. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the revenue conceded that in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year 2014-15, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, be treated as notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

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

Sr. No. 201(21) CWP-19662-2021 Date of decision : 18.04.2026 Chitkara Educational Trust

.…. Petitioner Versus Union of India and another

..... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate, with

Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate, and

Ms. Parnika Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel, for the revenue. * * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1.

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 others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, 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. 4.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

[DEEPAK SIBAL]

JUDGE

18.04.2026

[LAPITA BANERJI] shamsher

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.04.24 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →