UMESH KUMAR KHAITAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/24954/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01135582202517 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh allowed the petition in terms of the judgment passed in Jyoti Sareen's case dated 10.09.2026. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 31.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the consensus reached by the learned counsel for both the petitioner and the respondents, agreeing that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential actions. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Umesh Kumar Khaitan, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Chandigarh, and others. The parties, through their learned counsel, agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.15791 of 2024) dated 10.09.2026, concerning a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel agreed that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were detailed in the judgment, but the consensus indicates an alignment with the prior ruling. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel also agreed to the petitioner receiving the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. Similar to the assessee, no specific arguments were elaborated, but their agreement implies acceptance of the precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(Sr. No.125 )

CWP-24954-2025(O&M)

Date of decision : 17.09.2026 UMESH KUMAR KHAITAN .....Petitioner

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel,

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel for

the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1) Learned counsel for the parties agree that the petitioner would also be entitled to the same relief as has been granted through a judgment of this Court dated 10.09.2026 passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. (2)

In the light of the above consensus, the petition is allowed in terms of Jyoti Sareen’s case (supra), resulting in quashing of the impugned notice dated 31.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings, if any. (3)

All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE

17.09.

2026

( SUNISH BINDLISH ) shamsher/sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable

: Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.09.18 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →