Prabhat Singh V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & ors.

CWP/19859/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a petition filed by Prabhat Singh challenging a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner sought to quash the notice, claiming it was illegal and without jurisdiction, based on an improper sanction under Section 151 of the Act. However, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh noted that the legality of such notices was already under consideration by the Supreme Court in a connected matter involving Dr. Reddy Laboratories. Consequently, the High Court decided to stay the proceedings to avoid multiplicity of litigation and directed that the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision would govern this case as well.

• Counselvise Citation: [] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 823689 (HC-HIMACHAL_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Vs. M/s Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NEERAJ SHARMA; ISHAN KASHYAP
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITYA SOOD
• Keywords: Approval; Certiorari; Certiorari; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Notice; Sanction
• Section: 148; 151

Judgement Text

"2025:HHC:43980 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 19859/2025 Decided on: 16.12.2025 Prabhat Singh …..Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. ….Respondents ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Neeraj Sharma & Mr. Ishan Kashyap, Advocates. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral) The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby quashing/setting aside the impugned notice under Section 148 dated 31.03.2025, Annexure P-2, being illegal, without jurisdiction, against the procedure and further based on the illegal sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all proceedings/ actions consequent thereto.” 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Printed from counselvise.com 2 2. The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated 31.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) is already under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (c) No. 17040/2024, titled as The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Vs. M/s Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd. with connected matters. 3. Since the issue involved in this petition is already pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrain ourselves from giving our opinion with respect to impugned notice under Section 148, dated 31.03.2025 (Annexure P-2), as assailed in this petition. We direct that the present petition shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decision thereto, shall be binding on this case also. 4. The continuity of proceedings before the competent authority, in view of the pendency of the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is bound to lead to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to stay such proceedings till the time issue is finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ordered accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com 3 5. The petition is disposed of, in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Romesh Verma) 16.12.2025 Judge (pankaj) Printed from counselvise.com "