KULDIP SINGH VIRK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6836/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01039013202517 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. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 26.03.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings that may have arisen therefrom. The Court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications. The reasoning for quashing the notice is not detailed in the judgment but is based on the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case and the agreement of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kuldip Singh Virk, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The respondents were the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, and another authority from the Income Tax Department. The case was listed for hearing on 17.09.2026. Counsel for both the petitioner and the respondents agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same High Court on 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 notice dated 26.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, based on Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.15791 of 2024), decided on 10.09.2026 by this Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, agreed with the petitioner's submission and consented to the petitioner receiving the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen 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.110 )

CWP-6836-2025(O&M)

Date of decision : 17.09.2026 KULDIP SINGH VIRK .....Petitioner

Versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA AND ANOTHER ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Standing Counsel and

Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Junior Standing Counsel for

the respondent-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 26.03.2024 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 →