HANUMAN PARSAD SARAF vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/4500/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01023249202218 April 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition based on the concession made by the revenue. The revenue conceded that the impugned notices dated March 31, 2021, and April 6, 2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after April 1, 2021, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617. The Court directed the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of these notices, adhering to the procedure laid down under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during these proceedings. No specific amount in dispute was recorded, and the assessment years were not explicitly stated.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hanuman Parsad Saraf, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh challenging notices dated March 31, 2021, and April 6, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These notices were dispatched to the petitioner on or after April 1, 2021. The revenue, represented by Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel, conceded that in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, the impugned notices should be treated as notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices dated 31.03.2021 and 06.04.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through learned senior counsel, was satisfied with the revenue's concession regarding the treatment of the notices. Revenue's Contention: The revenue conceded that the impugned notices should be treated as notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act, in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617.

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(120) CWP-4500-2022 Date of decision : 18.04.2026 Hanuman Parsad Saraf

.…. Petitioner Versus Union of India and another

..... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Anirudh Garg, Advocate, and Mr. Mohit Bassi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, 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 notices dated 31.03.2021 and 06.04.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the respective assessment years, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short-the Act) be treated as notices 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 notices, 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 him, in accordance with law.

[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 →