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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30418/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01158083202617 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 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 impugned notice dated 30.08.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The court also disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications. The specific reasoning behind the relief granted in the Jyoti Sareen case, which formed the basis for this decision, is not detailed in this judgment, but the operative direction is the quashing of the Section 148 notice and related actions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Umesh Kumar Khaitan, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Chandigarh, and others. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The parties 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. The court was considering the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

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? (Question of law and fact). Assessee's contention: The petitioner, through his counsel, agreed that he would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its counsel, also agreed to the petitioner receiving the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for either side beyond this consensus.

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.144 )

CWP-30418-2026(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 30.08.2024 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 →