SIKANDER MANN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE GURGAON-2

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29903/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01136057202615 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 learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner is 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 petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 20.05.2026 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The reasoning is solely based on the agreement of the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior binding precedent, the court will grant that relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sikander Mann, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Gurgaon-2. The petitioner sought relief based on a previous judgment of the same court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). The impugned action under challenge was a notice dated 20.05.2026 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The parties agreed that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case.

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). Assessee's contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, agreed that they are entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were detailed in the judgment beyond this consensus. Revenue's contention: The respondent, through their counsel, also agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were detailed in the judgment 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.162 )

CWP-29903-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

SIKANDER MANN .....Petitioner

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE GURGAON-2 ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate and

Mr. Lokesh Garg, 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 20.05.2026 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 →