GAURAV SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD 1(3) GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30139/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01156144202616 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 CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India), decided on 10.09.2026. Based on the consensus between the parties and in light of the judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 25.06.2026 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a precedent set by a coordinate bench on similar facts and issues, the court should grant the same relief to avoid inconsistency. The operative direction was to quash the notice and all consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gaurav Sharma, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an action by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 1(3), Gurgaon. The specific action under challenge appears to be a notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The High Court noted that the parties had agreed to the same relief as granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India), decided on 10.09.2026. This prior judgment, in terms of Jyoti Sareen's case, resulted in the quashing of the impugned notice dated 25.06.2026 issued to the petitioner and any consequential proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The assessee sought to have the notice and consequential proceedings quashed. The assessee's counsel, Mr. Kamal Sawhney, along with the Revenue's counsel, Mr. Ranvijay Singh and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, agreed that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India). This implies the assessee relied on the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, consented to the relief being granted to the petitioner, aligning with the decision in Jyoti Sareen's case. No specific arguments or authorities were recorded for the Revenue beyond this consent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

128 128 128 128

IN T IN T IN T IN T GAURAV SHA GAURAV SHA GAURAV SHA GAURAV SHA INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M

(T M M for

**

DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB

1.

Le also be entitled this Court date Union of India

2.

In terms of Jyoti notice dated 2 Income Tax Ac

16.

09 16.09 16.09 16.09.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 Vandana yadav

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

ARMA ARMA ARMA ARMA

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER, ITO WARD 1(3) X OFFICER, ITO WARD 1(3) X OFFICER, ITO WARD 1(3) X OFFICER, ITO WARD 1(3)

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate, fo Through VC) Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing C r. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Co r the respondents-Income Tax D ** BAL AL BAL AL, J. , J. , J. , J.(O (O (O (Oral ral ral ral) earned counsel for the parties a d to the same relief as has been ed 10.09.2026 passed in CWP- a and others. n the light of the above consen i Sareen’s case (supra), resulting 25.06.2026 issued to the petitio ct, 1961 alongwith consequential

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye

AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-30139 30139 30139 30139-2026 2026 2026 2026 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 16.09. 16.09. 16.09. 16.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ) GU ) GU ) GU ) GURGAON RGAON RGAON RGAON

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH or the petitioner. Counsel with unsel, epartment. agree that the petitioner would n granted through a judgment of -15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. nsus, the petition is allowed in g in quashing of the impugned oner under Section 148 of the l proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE es/No es/No d f . n d e VANDANA YADAV 2026.09.19 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →