ARUN KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PANIPAT AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19381/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01106659202517 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 impugned notice dated 26.06.2025, 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 agreement of the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to parity with a prior judgment on similar facts and issues, the court will grant the same relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Arun Kumar, challenged a notice dated 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Panipat, and another respondent are the revenue authorities. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The parties agreed that the petitioner would 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 assessment year(s) are not specified. The amount in dispute is not stated.

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. The petitioner, through their counsel Ms. Divya Arora, argued that they should be granted the same relief as in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. The revenue, represented by Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel, agreed with this submission. No specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, circulars, or precedents were explicitly named in the judgment for either side's arguments, beyond the reference to the prior judgment in Jyoti Sareen's 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.123 )

CWP-19381-2025(O&M)

Date of decision : 17.09.2026 ARUN KUMAR .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PANIPAT AND ANR

.....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Ms. Divya Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel

for the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department.

(appeared through VC).

* * * 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 26.06.2025 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 →