GURJOT SINGH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2253/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01012972202515 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in light of the consensus reached between the parties, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notices dated 12.01.2024 and 03.06.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties to follow the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen’s case. The operative direction was the quashing of the notices and consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gurjot Singh, filed a writ petition (CWP-2253-2025) before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging notices dated 12.01.2024 and 03.06.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent was the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The High Court was informed that the parties had reached a consensus. The petitioner was to be granted the same relief as was granted in a previous judgment of the same Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The judgment does not specify the assessment year(s) or the amount in dispute.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notices dated 12.01.2024 and 03.06.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings, if any, are liable to be quashed? The petitioner, through his counsel, agreed that he would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The respondent, through its counsel, also agreed to this consensus. No specific arguments were recorded for either side beyond this agreement.

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.244 )

CWP-2253-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

GURJOT SINGH .....Petitioner

Versus

DEPUTY 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.

Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel and

Ms. Nikita Garg, Junior Standing Counsel for

the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1) Reply filed on behalf of the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department today in the Court is ordered to be taken on record. (2)

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. (3)

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 notices dated 12.01.2024 and 03.06.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings, if any. (4)

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 →