Prabhat Singh Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income… — Income Tax | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

Prabhat Singh Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income… — Income Tax | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without adjudication on merits; the petition is to be governed by and bound by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in SLP (C) No. 17040/2024, and proceedings before the competent authority pursuant to the impugned Section 148 notice dated 29.03.2025 are stayed until the issue is finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-2), founded on sanction/approval under Section 151, is legal, valid and proper. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the identical issue concerning the impugned Section 148 notice dated 29.03.2025 is already pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court, keeping in view judicial discipline, refrains from giving its opinion on the legality/validity of the notice as assailed in the petition.

Ratio / Principle

The present petition shall be governed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending matter, and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall be binding on this case.

Key takeaways

Continuation of proceedings before the competent authority while the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would lead to multiplicity of litigation; such proceedings are stayed until the issue is finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Income Tax – Challenge to notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) as illegal, without jurisdiction and based on sanction/approval under Section 151 – Identical issue already pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 17040/2024 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd., with connected matters) – Held, in view of judicial discipline, the High Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the validity of the notice; the petition shall be governed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which shall be binding on this case – Further, continuity of proceedings before the competent authority during such pendency would lead to multiplicity of litigation; such proceedings stayed till final decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court – Petition disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any.

2 025:HHC:4398 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CWP No. 19830/2025

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 29.03.2025, 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.

2

The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated 29.03.2025 (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 .

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 29.03.2025 (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.

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.

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 (pankaj)

Judge