NANJU THAKUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30386/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01157618202617 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 22.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings that may have arisen therefrom. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree that a case is on all fours with a previously decided case granting specific relief, the same relief should be extended. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nanju Thakur, filed a writ petition (CWP-30386-2026) before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging a notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent agreement between the parties. The dispute concerns the validity of the Section 148 notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the High Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, concerning a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that they should receive the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case, implying that the grounds for challenging the Section 148 notice are similar or identical. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, agreed with the petitioner that the same relief should be granted, indicating a consensus on the applicability of the Jyoti Sareen judgment to the present case.

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.141 )

CWP-30386-2026(O&M)

Date of decision : 17.09.2026 NANJU THAKUR .....Petitioner

Versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel,

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel and

Ms. Kavita, Advocate 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 22.03.2024 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 →