ARJUN SINGH JOHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22269/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01120927202515 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 petition is allowed in terms of the judgment passed in Jyoti Sareen’s case (supra). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 09.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, were quashed. The reasoning is based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties, who agreed that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a precedent established by the court in a similar matter, the court will grant the same relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Arjun Singh Johal, filed a writ petition (CWP-22269-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 09.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The Income Tax Officer and others were the respondents. Both the petitioner and the respondents 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.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 09.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The petitioner sought the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.15791 of 2024), implying that the notice and proceedings were invalid or liable to be set aside on similar grounds. Revenue's contention: The respondent-Income Tax Department agreed with the petitioner that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case, indicating their concession or agreement with the outcome of that precedent.

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.147 )

CWP-22269-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

ARJUN SINGH JOHAL .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Lalit Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Standing Counsel and

Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Junior Standing Counsel for

the respondent-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 09.04.2024 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 →