1. Challenge to reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 5006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, Yogesh Jaswal, JJ
Reena Kumari – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer – Respondent
CWP No. 3322 of 2025
Important Points
The court closed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the court afresh to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's decision to remand reassessment matters for fresh consideration in light of legislative amendments.
Subject
Taxation - Income Tax
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Income Tax Act - Reassessment - Notice under Section 148 - Remand by Supreme Court - Where the Supreme Court remands matters to High Courts for fresh consideration following legislative amendments, the petitioner is entitled to approach the court afresh to challenge the validity of the new provisions, specifically Section 147A. (Para 6)
(B) Judicial Discipline - Pending Supreme Court Decision - High Courts should refrain from expressing opinions on issues currently under consideration by the Supreme Court to avoid multiplicity of litigation and maintain judicial discipline. (Para 3)
Issues: Whether the petition could be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act following the Supreme Court's remand of similar reassessment matters.
(B) Judicial Discipline - Pending Supreme Court Decision - High Courts should refrain from expressing opinions on issues currently under consideration by the Supreme Court to avoid multiplicity of litigation and maintain judicial discipline. (Para 3)
Issues: Whether the petition could be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act following the Supreme Court's remand of similar reassessment matters.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vishal Mohan, Praveen Sharma
For the Respondents: Neeraj Sharma, Ishan Kashyap
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vishal Mohan, Praveen Sharma
For the Respondents: Neeraj Sharma, Ishan Kashyap
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner challenges notice as illegal and without jurisdiction; matter pending in Supreme Court. (Para 3 )
3. Supreme Court remanded matters to High Courts for fresh consideration due to amending legislation. (Para 5 )
4. Reassessment notices quashed on competence ground; altered by amending legislation; matters remitted. (Para 4 )
5. Petition closed with liberty to approach court afresh on the same cause of action. (Para 6 )
6. What is the effect of the amending legislation on reassessment notices quashed due to lack of competence?
The judgments quashing notices are set aside as the very foundation of that view is altered, and matters are remitted for fresh consideration. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. Can an assessee challenge the newly introduced Section 147A of the Income Tax Act?
Yes, the Supreme Court granted assessees liberty to amend their writ petitions to challenge Section 147A or any consequential provision. (Para 4 , 6 )
8. What liberty was granted to the petitioner upon remand of the case?
The petitioner may approach the High Court afresh on the same cause of action and challenge Section 147A if advised. (Para 6 )
___________________________________o_________________ _
Ajay Mohan Gooel, Judge
(Oral)
With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of today itself.
2h. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, praying for the following relief:-
“(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ i in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby quashing/setting aside the impugned notice under Section 148 dated 26.3.2024 (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.”
3. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 17.09.2025, in the following terms:-
“2. The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated 26.3.2024 (Anne.xure P-2) is already under consideration beforeP the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (c) No. 17040/2024, titled as The Assistant CommissiHoner of Income Tax & Another Vs. M/s Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd. with connected matters.
3. Since the issue involvedf in this petition is already pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, kee ping in view the judicial discipline, we refrain ourselvtes from giving our opinion with respect to impugned notice under Section 148, dated 26.3.2024 (Annexure P-2), as assailed in this petition. We direct thaot the present petition shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Cdecision thereto, shall be binding on this case also.
5. The continuity of proceedings before the competent hauthority, in view of the pendency of the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is bound to lead to g multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, we deem it i appropriate to stay such proceedings till the time issue H is finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.Ordered accordingly.
6. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.”
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to dispose of a large batch of reassessment matters in terms of judgment dated 10.04.2026, passed in C.A. No.4716 of 2026, titled as Income Tax Officer Vs. Tej Partap Singh, by observing as under:-
“18. It is urged that, in light of the divergent views taken by the High Courts owing to perceived ambiguity in the existing law, Parliament has now made the clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from 01.04.2021, the date on which the original provisions came in.to force, and that the alleged anomalous situationP, if any, has been removed. It was additionally submitted that the power to enact retrospective amenHdments is well settled in law, and that fresh notices will now be issued to assessees in accordance with the clarified position, so that pending reassessmefnt proceedings may be concluded in accordance with law.
19. Conversely, it h as been vehemently urged on behalf of the assesseets that the new Amendment is not ‘clarificatory’ in nature but is rather an abortive attempt to fasten penal liability retrospectively, which is imopermissible under law. It is their contention that the amending laws having antedated civil consequences Cought to be construed strictly.
20. In all fairness, we may add that several other hcontentions have also been raised by both sides, which we do not consider it necessary to advert to at this stage g in light of the order we propose to pass. In the facts of the i present batch, we are of the considered view that it is not H necessary for this Court to examine the merits of the rival submissions concerning the correctness of the impugned judgments or the scope of the competing precedents at this juncture.
21. It appears to us that the assessees would be entitled to challenge the amendin
