VIJAY KUMAR PERIWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), ABOHAR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29174/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01157937202517 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 Court allowed the petition. The impugned notice dated 20.06.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The Court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications. The reasoning is based on the agreement of the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to a specific relief based on a prior judicial pronouncement, the court will grant that relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vijay Kumar Periwal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice dated 20.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Abohar. 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 regarding the relief to be granted. The respondent is the Income Tax Department.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 20.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they should be entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same Court in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Revenue's Contention: The respondent, Income Tax Department, agreed with the petitioner's submission that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited by either party in the judgment itself, other than the reference to the prior 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.128 )

CWP-29174-2025(O&M)

Date of decision : 17.09.2026 VIJAY KUMAR PERIWAL .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), ABOHAR ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate and

Ms. Parnika Singla, 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 20.06.2025 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 →