1. Challenge to reassessment notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act for AY 2020-21. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 5021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, Yogesh Jaswal, JJ
Mukesh Sawhney – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer – Respondent
CWP No . 7790 of 2024
Important Points
The High 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 remand of similar reassessment matters for fresh adjudication.
Subject
Tax Law - Income Tax
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Income Tax Act - Reassessment Notices - Remand by Supreme Court - Where the Supreme Court has set aside High Court judgments and remitted matters for fresh consideration allowing challenges to newly introduced provisions (Section 147A), the High Court may close the pending petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh challenge. (Para 5, 6)
Issues: Whether the petition should be decided on merits or closed with liberty to file a fresh challenge in light of the Supreme Court's directions in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. Tej Partap Singh.
Issues: Whether the petition should be decided on merits or closed with liberty to file a fresh challenge in light of the Supreme Court's directions in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. Tej Partap Singh.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nitin Thakur
For the Respondents: Neeraj Sharma, Ishan Kashyap, Virbahadur Verma
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nitin Thakur
For the Respondents: Neeraj Sharma, Ishan Kashyap, Virbahadur Verma
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner challenged jurisdiction of reassessment notice; Revenue defended validity of amendment. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Supreme Court set aside High Court judgments and remanded matters for fresh consideration after amendment. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Assessees can challenge newly introduced Section 147A before High Courts after remand by Supreme Court. (Para 4 )
5. Petition closed with liberty to approach court afresh on same cause of action within 90 days. (Para 6 )
6. What is the effect of the Supreme Court's remand on pending reassessment matters?
The Supreme Court set aside High Court judgments quashing reassessment notices and remanded matters for fresh consideration in light of the amending legislation. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. Can assessees challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act after the Supreme Court's remand?
Yes, assessees were granted liberty to amend their writ petitions to challenge Section 147A as introduced by Act No. 4 of 2026. (Para 4 )
8. What was the basis for the Supreme Court setting aside the High Court judgments?
The High Courts had quashed reassessment notices on the ground that Assessing Officers lacked competence, which view was altered by the amending legislation. (Para 4 )
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of today itself.
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, praying for the following relief:-
“(i) Issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the notice dated 14.3.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2020-21 by Respondent No.1 and notice dated 29.6.2024 (Annexure P6) by Respondent No.3 being devoid of jurisdiction.
(ii) Issuance of a writ declaring deeming fiction of information in possession conferred on the Assessing Officer in Explanation 2 (iv) to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) by the Finance Act, 2022 is ultra vires the Constitution of India;
(iii) Issuance of a writ declaring deeming fiction of information in possession conferred on the Assessing Officer in Clause (c) of Proviso to Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) by the Finance Act, 2022 is ultra vires the Constitution of India.”
The writ petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 25.06.2025, 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 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) is already under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (c) Diary No. 17041/2024., case titled Union of India & Ors. Vs. Association of Technical Textiles Manufacturers and Processors & Anr.
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 14.03.2024 (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 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.
5. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.”
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 into force, and that the alleged anomalous situation, if any, has been removed. It was additionally submitted that the power to enact retrospective amendments is well settled in law, and that fresh notices will now be issued to assessees in accordance with the clarified position, so that pending reassessment proceedings may be concluded in accordance with law.
19. Conversely, it has been vehemently urged on behalf of the assessees that the new Amendment is not ‘clarificatory’ in nature but is rather an abortive attempt to fasten penal liability retrospectively, which is impermissible under law. It is their contention that the amending laws having antedated civil consequences ought to be construed strictly.
20. In all fairness, we may add that several other contentions have also been raised by both sides, which we do not consider it necessary to advert to at this stage in light of the order we propose to pass. In the facts of the present batch, we are of the considered view that it is not nec
