HANS RAJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30254/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01160682202515 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that based on the consensus between the parties, 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 21.06.2025, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was solely based on the agreement between the petitioner and the revenue to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to extend the benefit of a prior judgment to a subsequent case with similar facts and legal issues, the court will grant such relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hans Raj, challenged a notice dated 21.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The Income Tax Officer and others were the respondents. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Both the petitioner and the respondents 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 assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment.

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, concerning the validity of the notice under Section 148). The petitioner argued that they should receive the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. The revenue (Income Tax Department) agreed with this submission. No specific authorities, circulars, or precedents were named in the judgment for this consensus, other than the reference to the Jyoti Sareen case itself.

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.149 )

CWP-30254-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

HANS RAJ .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Nikhil Goyal, 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 21.06.2025 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

15.09.

2026

( SUNISH BINDLISH ) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2026.09.17 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. 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 →