KRISHAN KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PANIPAT AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30378/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01164630202515 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 is entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated September 10, 2026, in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the impugned notice dated April 19, 2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings arising therefrom, were quashed. The reasoning is based on the consensus reached between the parties, wherein both the petitioner and the revenue agreed that the petitioner should receive the same benefit as was awarded in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to be bound by a prior judgment of the same court on similar facts, the court will grant the same relief. The operative direction is the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Krishan Kumar, challenged a notice dated April 19, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Panipat, and others. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The parties agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same court on September 10, 2026, in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated April 19, 2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court dated September 10, 2026, in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others) and agrees to be entitled to the same relief granted in that case. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agrees with the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments 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.150 )

CWP-30378-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

KRISHAN KUMAR .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PANIPAT AND ORS ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Amit Kaushik, 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 19.04.2024 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 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 →