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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30417/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01158087202617 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, based on the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings were quashed. The court also disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications. The ratio decidendi is that when parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior binding precedent of the same court, the court will grant that relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the Section 148 notice and consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Umesh Kumar Khaitan, filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and 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 case was listed for hearing on 17.09.2026. Both the petitioner and the revenue agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed, as a question of law and fact. 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, decided by this Court on 10.09.2026. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed with the petitioner's submission and consented to the petition being allowed in terms of the aforementioned judgment.

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.143 )

CWP-30417-2026(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 31.08.2024 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 →