NIKHIL KOCHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28983/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01156605202515 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 reached between the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, allowed the petition. The court ordered 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). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 15.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings were quashed. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The judgment did not specify the exact relief granted in Jyoti Sareen's case, nor did it detail the reasoning behind that prior judgment, as the current decision was based on agreement.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nikhil Kochar, filed a writ petition (CWP-28983-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The petition challenged a notice dated 15.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The parties, through their learned counsel, 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 court was informed of this consensus.

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)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, agreed with the respondent that the petitioner should be granted the same relief as was awarded in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the petitioner beyond this consensus. Revenue's Contention: The respondent, through their counsel, also agreed that the petitioner should be granted the same relief as was awarded in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the revenue beyond this consensus.

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.253 )

CWP-28983-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

NIKHIL KOCHAR .....Petitioner

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel,

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel and

Ms. Kavita, Advocate 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 15.04.2024 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

15.09.

2026

( SUNISH BINDLISH ) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2026.09.17 16:12 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 →