Shyam Hari Gupta V. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur and The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Raipur

WPT/61/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Shyam Hari Gupta challenging the notices and orders issued by the Income Tax authorities under Sections 148 and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notice was barred by limitation and the sanction for reopening the assessment was mechanically granted without proper application of mind. The respondents countered that the reopening was based on tangible material indicating escapement of income tax by the petitioner. The court referenced a similar case, WP(T) No.183/2023, which was dismissed, and affirmed by the Division Bench, leading to the dismissal of the current petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826027 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Goenka Lime and Chemical Limited Katni, Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agrawal, Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, Anshul Jain vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: MOOL JAIN
• Keywords: Assessment; Income Tax; Limitation; Notice; Reassessment; Sanction; Writ petition
• Section: 148; 133(6); 151; 148A(b); 148A(d); 148A(a)

Judgement Text

"1 2026:CGHC:44 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 61 of 2023 1 - Shyam Hari Gupta S/o Late Shri Gulabchand Gupta Aged About 56 Years R/o D- 34, 21--Bunglow, New Gayatri Nagar, Shankar Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Assistant Commissioner of Incom Tax Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title as taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Mool Chand Jain, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 02/01/2026 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 Calling the records of the case. Printed from counselvise.com RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.01.07 10:49:46 +0530 2 10.2 Quashing the notice u/S 148 of the Income Tax, Act, 1961 issued on 14.07.2022 (Annexure-P/12) and order passed u/S 148A(d) of the IT Act on 13.07.2022 (Annexure-P/11) by the respondent No.2. 10.3 Directing the respondent not to proceed further against the petitioner in the matter of assessment in pursuance of notice u/S 148 of the IT Act. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble court deems fit may also be granted.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (henceforth referred to as ‘IT Act’) dated 30.06.2021 was served to the petitioner on 01.07.2021, which is barred by limitation. The sanction has been given by the Principal CIT, Raipur mechanically without application of mind and without going through the record, therefore, it is invalid sanction. In this regard, he relied in the case of CIT vs. Goenka Lime and Chemical Limited Katni, [(2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC)]. He would further submit that there is no tangible material for reopening or reassessing the case of petitioner because all the documents were already filed by petitioner before AO (Assessing Officer) in response to the notice under Section 133(6) and 148A(a) of the IT Act. He next submitted that sanction under Section 151 of the IT Act has been taken from Principal CIT whereas after 01.04.2021, it should have been taken from CCIT (Chief Commissioner of Income Tax), hence, on above ground, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petition may be admitted for hearing. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that earlier prior to COVID period, notice under Section 148 of the IT Act Printed from counselvise.com 3 was issued to the petitioner on 30.06.2021 and subsequently, after the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agrawal, [(2023) 1 SCC 617], fresh notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act was issued to the petitioner along with complete information and relevant material. Copy of sanction order under Section 151 (2) of the IT Act was also supplied to the petitioner. He would further submit that an information was received through Portal of ITBA (Income Tax Business Application) with regard to escapement of income tax by the petitioner, therefore, case of the petitioner has been reopened and notices have been issued to him. He next submitted that similar notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act was challenged in WP(T) No.183/2023, which was dismissed by learned Single Bench and the same has been affirmed by learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.09.2025 in WA No.412/2023, hence, on the same ground, this petition may be disposed of. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Counsel for the respondents filed a copy of the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in WA No.412/2023. Perusal of that order shows that challenging notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, a Writ Petition (T) No.183/2023 was filed before learned Single Bench, which was dismissed finding no merit. That order was challenged in WA No.412/2023, which has been dismissed by learned Division Bench vide order dated 15.09.2025 observing various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, relevant para 14 is reproduced here-in-under:- Printed from counselvise.com 4 “14. Thus, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd., [(1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC)] followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Anshul Jain, [(2022) 143 taxmann.com 37 (Punj. & Har.)] and that has been further affirmed by the Supreme Court in Anshul Jain, [(2022) 449 ITR 256 (SC)], we are of the considered opinion that the sufficiency or correctness of the material cannot be gone into at this stage and it is open to the assessee to prove all the facts and demonstrate that the notice issued is erroneous and all the pleas which were sought to be taken regarding limitation can be taken before the Assessing Officer, as the Department has shown prima facie material on the basis of which reopening of the assessment is sought.” 7. In instant case also, the notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act and the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act have been challenged by the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to challenge insufficiency or incorrectness of the material as also jurisdiction before the Assessing Authority including ground of limitation also. In the case of Anshul Jain (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “1. What is challenged before the High Court was the re- opening notice under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notices have been issued, after considering the objections raised by the petitioner. If the petitioner has any grievance on merits thereafter, the same has to be agitated before the Assessing Officer in the re-assessment proceedings.” 8. Having considered the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in WA No.412/2023 and the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court referred therein, I am not inclined to entertain Printed from counselvise.com 5 instant petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, hence, the petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all the grounds available to him under the law before the Assessing Officer in the re-assessment proceedings. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. 10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar Printed from counselvise.com "