Mohan Parkash V. Union of India and others

CWP/24892/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Mohan Parkash, the petitioner, who challenged several notices and an order issued by the Income Tax Department concerning the Assessment Year 2015-16. The notices were issued under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically Sections 148 and 148A. The petitioner argued that these notices were invalid based on a Supreme Court judgment which affected the procedural timeline for such notices due to the provisions of TOLA. The Income Tax Department conceded that the notices were indeed issued beyond the permissible time limit as set by TOLA. Consequently, the High Court set aside all the contested notices and the order, ruling in favor of the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834704 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 167 Taxmann.com 70 (SC)
• 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; Supreme Court judgment; TOLA
• Section: 148; 148A(b); 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"1 CWP-24892-2022 226-a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24892-2022 Date of Decision: February 02, 2026 Mohan Parkash .....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 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. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the matter is squarely Printed from counselvise.com RITU SHARMA 2026.02.05 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-24892-2022 covered in favour of petitioner in view of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 167 Taxmann.com 70 (SC) 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 the specific stand of respondent-Income Tax Department, notice dated 25.06.2021 under Section 148 of 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 are set-aside. 5. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. (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 "