Disposed

Kulwant Singh v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Oct 2024CWP/18032/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of numerous connected writ petitions challenging the validity of tax reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, directing the Revenue to examine each case to determine if notices were time-barred or involved sums under Rs. fifty lakhs, and to drop proceedings accordi

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to Revenue to examine notices and drop time-barred or low-value proceedings; writ petitions disposed.

Kulwant Singh Vs Union of India and Others — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases - 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

202
1.		CWP-18032-2024 Decided on : 19.10.2024
KULWANT SINGH UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
2.		CWP-18235-2022
WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS	S LIMITED V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
3.		CWP-18353-2022
RAJAN KAKKAR PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM	V/S E TAX AND ANR	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
4.		CWP-18505-2022
NAVJOT SINGH WALIA UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
5.		CWP-18554-2022
KAMLESH UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
6.		CWP-18876-2022
RADHA MOHAN MISHRA	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
7.		CWP-18890-2022
RADHA MOHAN MISHRA	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS		. . . RESPONDENT(S)

¶4

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶5

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases- 2 -
8.	CWP-18894-2022
BSS REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED
	. . . PETITIONER(S)
V/S UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
9.	CWP-19196-2022
SANGITA SYNGHAL
	. . . PETITIONER(S)
V/S UNION OF INDIA AND ORS	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
10.	CWP-19199-2022
SANGITA SYNGHAL
	. . . PETITIONER(S)
V/S UNION OF INDIA AND ORS	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
11.	CWP-19259-2022
ASHISH GARG
	. . . PETITIONER(S)
V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELH	I AND ORS. . . . RESPONDENT(S)
12.	CWP-19262-2022
SANGITA SYNGHAL
	. . . PETITIONER(S)
V/S
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
12-A.	CWP-19639-2022
CHANDER MOHAN GUPTA
	. . . PETITIONER(S)
V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
13.	CWP-19654-2022
HARI SINGH
V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
14.	CWP-19674-2022
GURCHARAN SINGH
	. . . PETITIONER(S)
V/S JAWALA RAM
2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶6

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected ca	ses- 3 -
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
15.		CWP-19685-2022
PAVITPAL SINGH	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
16.		CWP-19791-2022
PREM SINGH	/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UOI AND ORS.	V	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
17.		CWP-19921-2022
SONAM KASERA	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
18.		CWP-19944-2022
DURGA RICE MILLS		. . . PETITIONER(S)
	V/S
CBDT AND ORS		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
19.		CWP-19970-2022
AGGARWAL FOODS	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CBDT AND ORS		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
20.		CWP-20359-2022
LALITA BANSAL	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TA	XES AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
21.		CWP-20363-2022
SHOBHA GUPTA	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
22.		CWP-20516-2022
SUNIL KUMAR GOYAL

¶7

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶8

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases- 4 -
V/S UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
23.	CWP-20576-2022
RAMA KRISHNA RICE MILLS V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
24.	CWP-20624-2022
RAMA KRISHNA RICE MILLS V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
25.	CWP-20658-2022
RED CHILLI INTERNATIONAL SALES V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CBDT AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
26.	CWP-20660-2022
UBBER BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
27.	CWP-20662-2022
VEENA GARG V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
28.	CWP-20867-2022
RAMESH CHANDER DUREJA V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
29.	CWP-20880-2022
JAGDISH DHAWAN V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)

¶9

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶10

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected case	s- 5 -
30.		CWP-20894-2022
SUSHIL AGGARWAL	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
31.		CWP-21185-2022
MALKEET KAUR	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
32.		CWP-21382-2022
DINESH JAIN	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF IN	COME TAX AND	ANR . . . RESPONDENT(S)
33.		CWP-21571-2022
MOHIT MITTAL	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
INCOME TAX OFFICER		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
34.		CWP-21654-2022
SANJEEV GARG	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CBDT AND ORS		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
35.		CWP-22307-2022
KAMADGIRI STEELS PVT LTD INCOME TAX OFFICER	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
36.		CWP-22332-2022
CHANDAN BALA JAIN CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAX	V/S ES AND ORS.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
37.		CWP-22338-2022
CHANDAN BALA JAIN	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)

¶11

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶12

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases- 6 -
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
38.	CWP-23582-2022
RAMA RICE AND GENERAL MILLS V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CBDT AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
39.	CWP-23706-2022
GURINDER SINGH V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
40.	CWP-23764-2022
PLATINUM SALES V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
41.	CWP-23951-2022
DURGA RICE MILLS	. . . PETITIONER(S)
V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
42.	CWP-23972-2022
MANDEEP SINGH @ MANDEEP OBEROI V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
43.	CWP-24349-2022
BERKELEY MOTORS LIMITED V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
44.	CWP-24631-2022
RISHABH FOUR WHEELERS PVT. LTD. V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
45.	CWP-25923-2022

¶13

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶14

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases- 7 -
BHAVUK GOEL C/O M/S MAHAVIR RICE MILLS, DERA GAMA ROAD ASSANDH, KARNAL V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
46.	CWP-26679-2022
ASHISH VERMA V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PANIPAT	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
47.	CWP-27319-2022
DEEPAK GARG V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
48.	CWP-18415-2022
RAJAN KAKKAR V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
49.	CWP-20664-2022
R D RICE AND GENERAL MILLS V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CBDT AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
50.	CWP-21175-2022
NECTAR LIFESCIENCES LIMITED V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
51.	CWP-21183-2022
INDER JEET KAUR V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
52.	CWP-27761-2022
SHUKLA RANI	. . . PETITIONER(S)
V/S UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

¶15

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶16

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases- 8 -	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
53.	CWP-24073-2022 (O&M)
NISHA GARG V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CBDT AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
54.	CWP-24081-2022
ISHWAR GARG V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CBDT AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
55.	CWP-24091-2022
AGGARWAL FOODS V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CBDT AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
56.	CWP-28431-2022
PIYUSH SHARMA V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD A	ND ORS. . . . RESPONDENT(S)
57.	CWP-28442-2022
KAMAL METALS PRIVATE LIMITED V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) AMRITSAR AN	. . . PETITIONER(S) D ANR. . . . RESPONDENT(S)
58.	CWP-28527-2022
JAGDEEP KAUR BHATIA V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
59.	CWP-28692-2022
IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD V/S DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND	. . . PETITIONER(S) ORS . . . RESPONDENT(S)
60.	CWP-28693-2022
IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD	. . . PETITIONER(S)

¶17

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶18

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases- 9 -
V/S DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND	ORS . . . RESPONDENT(S)
61.	CWP-29069-2022
RATTANDEEP SINGH SWANI V/S UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
62.	CWP-29227-2022
SURYA RICE AND GENERAL MILLS V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
63.	CWP-1795-2023
VIDYA CHHABRA V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
64.	CWP-1918-2023
MAHAKALI CAPITAL INVESTMENTS SERVICES P V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS	VT LTD . . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
65.	CWP-1922-2023
JINDAL FINLEASE PVT. LTD. V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NORTH BL NEW DELHI AND ORS.	OCK, . . . RESPONDENT(S)
66.	CWP-2112-2023
B.R. FOODS V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
67.	CWP-1130-2023
SUMIT GARG V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)

¶19

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶20

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases- 10 -
68.	CWP-1506-2023
SUMAN BANSAL V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CBDT AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
69.	CWP-1508-2023
SANJEEV KUMAR HUF THROUGH SANJEEV KUM	AR KARTA
V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
70.	CWP-1525-2023
ASHA BANSAL V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
71.	CWP-1627-2023
NEHA GOYAL V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
72.	CWP-1630-2023
MAMTA ARORA V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
73.	CWP-1631-2023
LUXMI DEVI V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
74.	CWP-1643-2023
SANDEEP ARORA (HUF) V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CBDT AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
75.	CWP-1734-2023
KAILASH RANI	. . . PETITIONER(S)
V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.

¶21

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶22

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases- 11 -	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
76.	CWP-1862-2023
SUDHIR GOYAL HUF V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
77.	CWP-2206-2023
TEJA SINGH V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
78.	CWP-2254-2023
CHERRY WADHWA V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
79.	CWP-2538-2023
GAURAV JAIN V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
80.	CWP-2692-2023
ASHA JAIN V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
PR. COMMISSIONER OF IT AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
81.	CWP-2932-2023
VIJAY KUMAR V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
82.	CWP-2039-2023
SATNAM SINGH V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
83.	CWP-12412-2023
USHA RANI	. . . PETITIONER(S)

¶23

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶24

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases	- 12 -
NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMEN	V/S T CENTRE	AND ORS. . . . RESPONDENT(S)
84.		CWP-9152-2023
SURESH KUMAR	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
85.		CWP-577-2023
PAWAN KUMAR	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
86.		CWP-6729-2023 (O&M)
DEEPAK SONI THROUGH LEGAL H	EIR SAJJAN V/S	KUMAR SONI . . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
87.		CWP-9071-2023 (O&M)
SAHIL JAIN	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
88.		CWP-8369-2023
BIMLA RANI	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
89.		CWP-4366-2023
MONOJ BERLIA	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
90.		CWP-4580-2023
M/S SHREE HARI OM FOODS	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
91.		CWP-4629-2023

¶25

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶26

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cas	es- 13 -
M/S SHREE HARI OM FOODS	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
92.		CWP-4655-2023
M/S SHREE HARI OM FOODS THR SH. LALIT SINGLA	OUGH ITS PATN V/S	ER . . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
93.		CWP-4704-2023
HISAR EXIM PVT LTD	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TA	XES AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
94.		CWP-4732-2023
SHRUTI BHAGAT	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
95.		CWP-5229-2023
JITENDER SINGH MOR	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
96.		CWP-5469-2023
AMIT JAIN		. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	V/S	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
97.		CWP-5669-2023
NARESH ARORA	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
98.		CWP-5751-2023
M/S AMIT RICE AND GENERAL M	ILLS	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS	V/S

¶27

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶28

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases- 14 -	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
99.	CWP-5818-2023
BIMLA DEVI V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
100.	CWP-5892-2023
M/S KBR AGRO FOODS V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
101.	CWP-5962-2023
SEL MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
102.	CWP-6102-2023
M/S KBR AGRO FOODS V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
103.	CWP-6559-2023
HARDICON LIMITED V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
104.	CWP-6634-2023
AJAY BINDAL HUF V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
105.	CWP-9475-2023
SAROJ JAIN V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
106.	CWP-9552-2023
DEVINDER SINGH AND SONS (HUF)	. . . PETITIONER(S)

¶29

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶30

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases- 15 -
V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD, LUDHIANA A	ND ANR. . . . RESPONDENT(S)
107.	CWP-9669-2023
R D VOHRA HUF V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
108.	CWP-10047-2023
PARVEEN JAIN V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
109.	CWP-10052-2023
SANJAY JAIN V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
110.	CWP-10418-2023
PAWAN KUMAR GOYAL HUF V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
111.	CWP-10511-2023
AMRIK SINGH AND SONS (HUF) V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 6 (1), LUDHIANA AND ANR.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
112.	CWP-10535-2023
PAWAN KUMAR GOYAL V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
113.	CWP-10564-2023
ANU AGGARWAL V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 6 (1), LUDHIANA AND ANR	. . . RESPONDENT(S)

¶31

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶32

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases	- 16 -
114.		CWP-10566-2023
SAVNEET KAUR	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD LUDHIANA AND ANR	6(1),	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
115.		CWP-10570-2023
SANDEEP KUMAR GOYAL	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
116.		CWP-10580-2023
VANITA GOYAL		. . . PETITIONER(S)
	V/S
INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
117.		CWP-10818-2023
ADS ASSOCIATED GROUP	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM GURGAON AND ORS.	E TAX,	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
118.		CWP-10951-2023
RAKSHA GOYAL	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
119.		CWP-10959-2023
BRIJESH SINGH	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
120.		CWP-12292-2023
AYUSH CHADHA, LEGAL HEIR BIM	LA RANI (D V/S	ECEASED) . . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
121.		CWP-12554-2023
RATESH KUMAR

¶33

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶34

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases	- 17 - V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (1), BATHINDA AND ANR.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
122.		CWP-11442-2023
SUMAN KANDOI	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES	AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
123.		CWP-2743-2023
SURESH KUMAR		. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	V/S	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
124.		CWP-3702-2023
RAJESH KUMAR JINDAL	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES	AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
125.		CWP-3468-2023
M/S JANTA RICE MILL	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
126.		CWP-3480-2023
M/S MANSA DEVI RICE MILLS	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
127.		CWP-3493-2023
M/S HARYANA RICE MILLS	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
128.		CWP-3496-2023
M/S HARYANA RICE MILL	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)

¶35

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶36

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases	- 18 -
129.		CWP-3514-2023
M/S MANSA DEVI RICE MILLS	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
130.		CWP-3526-2023
M/S HRM OVERSEAS	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
131.		CWP-3530-2023
M/S MANSA DEVI RICE MILLS THRO	UGH ITS PAR V/S	TNER . . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
132.		CWP-3546-2023
M/S HRM OVERSEAS	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
133.		CWP-4430-2023
SHARDA DEVI	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
134.		CWP-3805-2023
KUMAR STEEL AND ENGINEERING ITS PARTNER SMT PARAMJIT KAUR	WORKS THRO V/S	UGH . . . PETITIONER(S)
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXE SECRETARY AND ORS.	S THROUGH	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
135.		CWP-3860-2023
SATYAM JEWELLARY HOUSE	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CENTAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES	AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
136.		CWP-3960-2023
DAVINDER PAL SINGH HUF

¶37

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶38

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected ca CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TA	ses- 19 - V/S XES AND ORS.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
137.		CWP-4488-2023
RAJESH GOYAL	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
138.		CWP-4414-2023
M/S AMIT RICE AND GENERAL	MILLS	. . . PETITIONER(S)
	V/S
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
139.		CWP-4423-2023
M/S AMIT RICE AND GENERAL	MILLS V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
140.		CWP-4424-2023
M/S AMIT RICE AND GENERAL	MILLS V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
141.		CWP-4448-2023
M/S ACCENTS FOR LIVING, DEE THOUGH ITS PARTNER ARJUN N	PAK WOOLEN MI ATH V/S	LLS EXPORT . . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
142.		CWP-3048-2023
LEKH RAJ	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
143.		CWP-3068-2023
RAJESH KUMAR JAIN	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS		. . . RESPONDENT(S)

¶39

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶40

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases	- 20 -
144.		CWP-3084-2023
RAJESH KUMAR JAIN HUF UNION OF INDIA AND ORS	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
145.		CWP-3089-2023
RAJESH KUMAR JAIN	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
146.		CWP-3091-2023
SUNITA JAIN	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
147.		CWP-3446-2023
M/S JANTA RICE MILL	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.		. . . RESPONDENT(S)
148.		CWP-4060-2023
DEEPAK KHULLAR	V/S	. . . PETITIONER(S)
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXE	S AND ORS.	. . . RESPONDENT(S)
149.		CWP-4138-2023
PANKAJ GOYAL CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXE	V/S S AND ORS.	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
150.		CWP-4155-2023
NAFE SINGH CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXE	V/S S AND ORS	. . . PETITIONER(S) . . . RESPONDENT(S)
151.		CWP-30089-2022
MAHABIR INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PARTNER MANOJ KHURANNA		. . . PETITIONER(S)

¶41

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶42

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases - 21 - V/S CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS. . . . RESPONDENT(S)

¶43

CWP-7687-2024 GIAN CHAND V/S NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI AND ANR.

¶44

. . . PETITIONER(S)

¶45

. . . RESPONDENT(S)

¶46

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

¶47

PRESENT: Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate, Mr. Pankaj Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. Satyam Aneja, Advocate, Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Shiv Charan Bhola, Advocate, Mr. Manpreet Kanda, Advocate, Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate, Mr. Ved Jain, Advocate ( through V.C. ) with Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Nischay Kantoor, Advocate and Ms. Soniya Dahiya, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Umang Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Tarang Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev K. Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Naman Jain, Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate, Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate and Mr. Rishabh Jain, Advocate, Ms. Kirti Ahuja, Advocate ( through V.C. ), Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate who represented the petitioner(s) – assessee. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel,

¶48

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶49

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases - 22 -

¶50

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel, Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal Opal, Sr. Standing Counsel ( through V.C. ) who represented the respondent(s) – revenue.

¶51

¶52

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

¶53

These bunch of writ petitions were tagged together solely on account of one common issue involved with regard to the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), and the effect of TOLA and Finance Act, 2021, bringing the new faceless regime.

¶54

The Supreme Court has now passed the judgment in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal(SC), 2024 INSC 754 , finalizing the aforesaid issue and putting the controversy at rest. It has made the following observations:-

¶55

“53. The position of law which can be derived based on the above discussion may be summarized thus: (i) Section 149(1) of the new regime is not prospective. It also applies to past assessment years; (ii) The time limit of four years is now reduced to three years for all situations. The Revenue can issue notices under Section 148 of the new regime only if three years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (iii) the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime stipulates that the Revenue can issue reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year; and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs.

¶56

xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx

¶57

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶58

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases - 23 -

¶59

The effect of the creation of the legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of Section 148 notices under the old regime [which is also the date of issuance of the deemed notices]. As discussed in the preceding segments of this judgment, the period from the date of the issuance of the deemed notices till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) has to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. Moreover, the period of two weeks granted to the assesses to reply to the show cause notices must also be excluded in terms of the third proviso to Section 149.

¶60

The clock started ticking for the Revenue only after it received the response of the assesses to the show causes notices. After the receipt of the reply, the assessing officer had to perform the following responsibilities: (i) consider the reply of the assessee under Section 149A(c); (ii) take a decision under Section 149A(d) based on the available material and the reply of the assessee; and (iii) issue a notice under Section 148 if it was a fit case for reassessment. Once the clock started ticking, the assessing officer was required to complete these procedures within the surviving time limit. The surviving time limit, as prescribed under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA, was available to the assessing officers to issue the reassessment notices under Section 148 of the new regime.

¶61

Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under the old regime for a relevant assessment year. Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show cause notices will also come into effect from 1 May 2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days [days between 1 May 2021 and 30 June 2021] to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime. This time starts ticking for the assessing officer after receiving the response of the assessee. In this instance, if the assessee submits the response on 18 June 2022, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days from 18 June 2022 to issue a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime. Thus, in

¶62

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶63

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases - 24 -

¶64

this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the new regime will end on 18 August 2022.

¶65

xx xxx xx xxx

¶66

In view of the above discussion, we conclude that:

¶67

a. After 1 April 2021, the Income Tax Act has to be read along with the substituted provisions;

¶68

b. TOLA will continue to apply to the Income Tax Act after 1 April 2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the Income Tax Act falls for completion between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021;

¶69

c. Section 3(1) of TOLA overrides Section 149 of the Income Tax Act only to the extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 148; d. TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under Section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(i) has extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval;

¶70

e. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(2) has extended time till 31 March 2021 to grant approval;

¶71

f. The directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) will extend to all the ninety thousand reassessment notices issued under the old regime during the period 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021;

¶72

g. The time during which the show cause notices were deemed to be stayed is from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), and the period of two weeks allowed to the assesses to respond to the show cause notices; and

¶73

h. The assessing officers were required to issue the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA. All notices issued beyond the surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside;”

¶74

Accordingly, it observed further and disposed of as under:-

¶75

“116. The appeals filed by the Revenue are accordingly allowed. The appeals filed by the assesses will be governed by reasons discussed in this judgment.”

¶76

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶77

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases - 25 -

¶78

In the present bunch of the petitions, counsels for the petitioners have submitted that in terms of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court, in some of the cases mentioned, notices issued to them under Section 148 of the Act, have become time barred and the proceedings required to be dropped. In some of the other cases, the proceedings would continue and the authorities can proceed, while in some other cases, the valuation being less than Rs.50,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Lakhs), the proceedings required to be dropped as per the stand taken by the revenue before the Supreme Court.

¶79

The counsels appearing for the revenue submit that in each case facts will have to be examined individually.

¶80

It is their submission that the concerned Assessing Officer can be asked to decide the said issue in terms of the observations of the Supreme Court and drop the proceedings where they fall beyond limitation, or are below the value of Rs.50.00 lakhs.

¶81

The learned Senior counsel, Ms. Radhika Suri, appearing for few of the petitioners, however, submits that the respondents – revenue should be directed to file their affidavit regarding the position of each and every individual assessee in the various writ petitions with reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court.

¶82

We accordingly direct the revenue to examine each and every case relating to the deemed notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, in light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal’s case (supra) and reach to a conclusion, as to whether the proceedings would fall within the limitation or have become time barred in terms of sub-para F, G & H of paragraph No.114 (supra).

¶83

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶84

CWP-18032-2022 & other connected cases - 26 -

¶85

While examining the cases, the example as mentioned by the Apex Court in its judgment in Rajeev Bansal’s case (supra) in paragraph No.112 and observations made in paragraph Nos.110 and 111, shall also be taken into consideration. Cases, which fall less than the value of Rs.50,00,000/- would have to be dropped keeping in view the stand taken by the revenue before the Apex Court, as observed in paragraph No.53.

¶86

The aforesaid exercise shall be conducted by the concerned competent Officer of the Department expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months without any further delay. The decision shall be conveyed to the assessee in terms of the faceless regime by the concerned Officer keeping in view the provision of Section 144-B of the Act.

¶87

If any of the petitioner/assessee is still aggrieved of the order passed, remedy in terms of the provision of the Act can be availed by him.

¶88

With the aforementioned observations, the writ petitions are

¶89

disposed of.

¶90

Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶91

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

¶92

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶93

October 19, 2024 J.Ram

¶94

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶95

JAWALA RAM 2024.10.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Kulwant Singh v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulwant Singh v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Gurgaon Vs Prabhu Dayal Memorial Religious & Educational Association

Commissioner of Income Tax Gurgaon Vs Prabhu Dayal Memorial Religious & Educational Association

Commissioner of Income Tax Gurgaon Vs Prabhu Dayal Memorial Religious & Educational Association

Mukul Hasteer HUF Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors.

Neetu Hasteer Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors.

Kavita Bansal Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others