1. Challenge to reassessment notice under Section 148 and order under Income Tax Act, 1961. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 5029
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, Yogesh Jaswal, JJ
Dinesh Singh Saklani – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer – Respondent
CWP No. 13087 of 2024
Important Points
The High Court closed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh challenge against reassessment notices and the newly introduced Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's remand of similar matters.
Subject
Tax Law - Income Tax
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Income Tax Act - Reassessment Notices - Impact of Amending Legislation - Where the Supreme Court has set aside High Court judgments quashing reassessment notices due to a change in law via the introduction of Section 147A (Act No. 4 of 2026), the matters are remanded for fresh consideration. (Para 4, 5)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Liberty to File Fresh Petition - When a matter is remanded by the Supreme Court with liberty to challenge new statutory provisions, the High Court may close the existing petition and grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the court afresh on the same cause of action. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the reassessment notices in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Income Tax Officer Vs. Tej Partap Singh.
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Liberty to File Fresh Petition - When a matter is remanded by the Supreme Court with liberty to challenge new statutory provisions, the High Court may close the existing petition and grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the court afresh on the same cause of action. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the reassessment notices in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Income Tax Officer Vs. Tej Partap Singh.
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. Parties disputed validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 and amended provisions. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Supreme Court remanded matters for fresh consideration after setting aside judgments on limited ground. (Para 4 )
4. Quashed reassessment notices due to lack of competence; amendment altered foundation; matters remitted. (Para 4 )
5. Petition closed with liberty to approach court afresh and challenge Section 147A of IT Act. (Para 6 )
6. Was the amendment to Section 147A of the Income Tax Act clarificatory or substantive?
The Supreme Court declined to examine the merits and remitted matters to High Courts, allowing assessees to challenge the amending provisions. (Para 4 )
7. What is the effect of the Supreme Court remand on pending reassessment proceedings?
The High Court stayed proceedings until the issue was decided by the Supreme Court, and after remand, closed the petition with liberty to approach afresh. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 )
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of today itself.
2. 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 in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby quashing/setting aside the impugned notice under Section 148 dated 1.4.2022 (Annexure P-3) and impugned order dated 4.1.2024 (Annexure P-6) 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 4.1.2024 (Annexure P-6) 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.
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 4.1.2024 (Annexure P-6), 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.
5. 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.
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 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 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 amending provisions as elaborated up
