BALWINDER SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/572/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01003190202218 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 revenue's concession, made in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, that the impugned notice dated March 31, 2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after April 1, 2021, for the assessment year in question, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, was satisfactory. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, following the prescribed procedure. 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, Balwinder Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 31, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice was dispatched to the petitioner on or after April 1, 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 March 31, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dispatched on or after April 1, 2021, for the assessment year in question, 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 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 notice should be treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-572-2022 Date of Decision: 18.04.2026 BALWINDER SINGH

... 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, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Gupta, 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 01.04.2021, for the assessment year in question, 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 →