ADITYA MITTAL HUF vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5521/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01027218202218 April 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 25.11.2021, for the assessment year 2013-14, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. This decision was based on the concession made by the revenue, which was in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617. The Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available pleas and defenses during the subsequent proceedings. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aditya Mittal HUF, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched on or after 25.11.2021, for assessment year 2013-14, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 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. The petitioner's counsel was satisfied with this concession. The High Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 25.11.2021, for assessment year 2013-14, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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. Assessee's contention: The petitioner sought to have the notice treated as one under Section 148A(b) of the Act, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ashish Agarwal. Revenue's contention: The revenue conceded that the impugned notice should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal.

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-5521-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.04.2026 ADITYA MITTAL HUF

... Petitioner VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Ms. Tarang Goyal, Advocate 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 25.11.2021, for the assessment year 2013-14, 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.

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

CM-5808-2025 IN

CWP-5521-2022

ADITYA MITTAL HUF

V/S

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Present : Ms. Tarang Goyal, Advocate 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. * * * * *

Allowed as prayed for.

(DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE

(LAPITA BANERJI)

JUDGE

18.04.2026 Rajender

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 →