The petitioner, Nirdosh Bhushan, had earlier filed a writ petition in the Himachal Pradesh High Court contesting a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 and related steps under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act. The petition also challenged sanction or approval under section 151 and the resultant reassessment proceedings.
The High Court had initially disposed of the writ petition, noting that parallel matters were pending before the Supreme Court and directing that the petitioner's case be decided in light of the Apex Court's judgment. The Supreme Court later delivered a decision in a batch of reassessment cases (Income Tax Officer v. Tej Partap Singh on April 10, 2026) and remanded those matters to the respective High Courts, expressly permitting taxpayers to challenge Section 147A before the High Courts.
What the Himachal Pradesh Bench ordered
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ajay Mohan Goel and Justice Yogesh Jaswal recalled the earlier disposal. The court restored Bhushan's petition to its original number and granted liberty to approach the High Court afresh on the same cause of action, including a specific liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act and to seek any relief available due to subsequent developments.
- Case title: Nirdosh Bhushan vs. Income Tax Officer
- Case No.: CMP No.24572 of 2026
- Counsel for petitioner: Mr Praveen Sharma, Advocate
- Counsel for respondent: Mr Neeraj Sharma
Practical implications for taxpayers
Taxpayers who earlier held back their challenges to reassessment notices because parallel issues were pending before the Supreme Court now have a renewed route in the Himachal Pradesh High Court to contest Section 147A and related provisions. The decision preserves the existing security for a limited period, giving the petitioner time to re‑plead without immediate enforcement against the security.
Expect fresh pleadings and hearings in the restored petition while courts across jurisdictions consider similar remanded matters. The High Court will decide the petition in light of the Supreme Court's remand order and any specific legal arguments raised against Section 147A.
Section 147A in that jurisdiction, but the petitioner must act within the 90‑day security window the court fixed.