Mahesh Kumar V. Union of India and others

CWP/25049/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Mahesh Kumar, the petitioner, who challenged several notices and an order issued by the Income Tax Department concerning the Assessment Year 2015-16. The notices and order were issued under Sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that these were invalid based on a Supreme Court judgment in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, which affected the legal standing of such notices issued after April 1, 2021, due to the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020. Both parties acknowledged that the notices in question were issued beyond the permissible time frame as set by the relevant laws and the Supreme Court's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834719 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, Jay Jay Agro Industries vs. Income Tax Officer
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KAPOOR; RANA GURTEJ SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RADHIKA SURI; PARNIKA SINGLA; ABHINAV NARANG
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2015-16; Income Tax; Notice; Rajeev Bansal Case; Supreme Court judgment
• Section: 148; 148A(b); 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"1 CWP-25049-2022 (O&M) 226-b IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-11735-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-25049-2022 Date of Decision: February 02, 2026 Mahesh Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI Present: Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Ms. Parnika Singla, Advocate and Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Junior Standing counsel for respondent – Income Tax Department. **** LISA GILL, J. 1. Prayer in CM-11735-CWP-2025 is for allowing the writ petition in terms of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 167 Taxmann.com 70 (SC). This High Court in Jay Jay Agro Industries vs. Income Tax Officer 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 6852 has allowed the writ petition in view of Rajeev Bansal’s case, supra. 2. Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside notice dated 25.06.2021 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘IT Act’); notice dated 27.05.2022 under Section 148A(b) of IT Act; order dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148A(d) of IT Act and consequential notice dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148 of IT Act, for Assessment Year 2015-16 passed by respondent-Income Tax Department. Printed from counselvise.com RITU SHARMA 2026.02.05 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-25049-2022 (O&M) 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the matter is squarely covered in favour of petitioner in view of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal, supra wherein the revenue had conceded that for assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 (for short - ‘TOLA’). 3. Learned counsel for respondent-Income Tax Department submits that impugned notices under IT Act in the present case have indeed been issued beyond the time limit surviving under IT Act read with TOLA and the matter is covered in favour of petitioner in view of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal, supra. 4. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, including specific stand of respondent-Income Tax Department, notice dated 25.06.2021 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; notice dated 27.05.2022 under Section 148A(b) of IT Act; order dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148A(d) of IT Act and consequential notice dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148 of IT Act are set-aside. 5. Writ petition is, thus, allowed. Application is disposed of accordingly. (LISA GILL) JUDGE (RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI) February 02, 2026 JUDGE Rts Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Printed from counselvise.com RITU SHARMA 2026.02.05 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "