HARMINDER SINGH LEGA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5379/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01027517202218 April 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the revenue's concession, agreeing to treat the notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year 2016-17, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, was in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617. The Court accepted this concession, which satisfied the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice, in terms of 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 issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harminder Singh Lega, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.03.2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17. The notice was dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021. The revenue, represented by the Union of India and another, conceded that in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, the impugned notice should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. This concession was accepted by the petitioner's counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2016-17, 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 & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly sought to have the notice treated as per the prevailing law, which was clarified by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue conceded that the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year 2016-17, under Section 148 of the Act, be treated as notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. 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

CWP-5379-2022 Date of Decision: 18.04.2026 HARMINDER SINGH LEGA

... Petitioner VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Mr. Vaibhav Bharati and Ms. Mamta Gupta,

Advocates 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 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year 2016-17, 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 →