PARMINDER KAUR vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5864/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01029364202218 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 conceded to treating the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, 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's counsel. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to proceed from the stage of the notice, following 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 assessment year or amount in dispute was recorded.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Parminder Kaur, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched on or after 01.04.2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is not explicitly stated. The respondent is the Union of India and others, including the Income Tax Department. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh is hearing the case. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned notice, which is the subject of the challenge.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year in question, issued 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, through learned senior counsel Dr. Sanjay Bansal, implicitly seeks relief based on the Supreme Court's ruling. Revenue's Contention: 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, 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

CWP-5864-2022 Date of Decision: 18.04.2026 PARMINDER KAUR

... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Dr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gurdeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Naman Jain, Sr. Standing Counsel for U.O.I.

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 2026.04.23 19:21 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 →