Multani Jewellers v. Union Of India And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.279-64 CWP-6888-2022 Date of decision: 30.04.2026 Multani Jewellers ....Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:

Mr. Mukul Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing counsel and Ms. Nikita Garg, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) 1.

At the outset, learned counsel for the revenue concedes that in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617, the impugned notice dated 31.03.2021, dispatched to the petitioner on or after 01.04.2021, for the assessment year 2017-18, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short-the Act) be treated as notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 2.

The above concession satisfies learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent(s)-revenue to proceed from the stage of the afore notice, in terms of the procedure laid down under Section 148A(b) of the Act. JYOTI SHARMA 2026.05.06 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

CWP-6888-2022 -23.

Needless to add that in the course of the afore proceedings the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all possible pleas/defences that may be available to it, in accordance with law.

(DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE April 30, 2026 Jyoti 1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JYOTI SHARMA 2026.05.06 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh