NAN UDYOG THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH RAJNEESH KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PANIPAT AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/20728/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01112849202515 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in light of the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 28.06.2025 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 both the petitioner and the revenue that the petitioner should receive the same relief as had been granted in a previous judgment of the Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). The operative direction was the quashing of the Section 148 notice and consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific precedent being applied, the court will follow that consensus to grant similar relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, N.A.N. Udyog through its partner Sh. Rajneesh Kumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Panipat, and another. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The petition challenged a notice dated 28.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The procedural history involves the parties agreeing 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.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15791 of 2024) decided on 10.09.2026? (Question of law/mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, agreed that it would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific authorities or precedents were cited by the petitioner for this contention, relying instead on the consensus with the revenue. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, agreed with the petitioner that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. No specific authorities or precedents were cited by the revenue for this contention, also relying on the 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.146 )

CWP-20728-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

N.A.N. UDYOG THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH. RAJNEESH KUMAR .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PANIPAT AND ANR ` .....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 28.06.2025 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 →