HARISH NANDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10978/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01062567202415 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 08.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The reasoning for this decision is based on the consensus reached by the learned counsel for both parties, who agreed that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that when parties agree to extend the benefit of a prior judgment to a subsequent case with similar circumstances or on the basis of precedent, the court will uphold this agreement. The operative direction is the quashing of the Section 148 notice and consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harish Nanda, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice dated 08.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, is the respondent. The parties, through their respective counsel, 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. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent consensus between the parties.

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) dated 10.09.2026? (Question of law and fact). This issue turns on the applicability of the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case to the present petitioner's situation. The assessee (petitioner) argued that they should receive the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case, implying that the facts and legal grounds are similar or that the court should extend the same benefit. The revenue (respondent) agreed with the assessee's contention, consenting to the petitioner receiving the same relief as in the Jyoti Sareen case. No specific authorities, circulars, or precedents were named by either side in the judgment for this particular agreement, other than the implicit reliance on the Jyoti Sareen judgment itself.

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.273(1)

CWP-10978-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

HARISH NANDA .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 ` .....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. 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 08.04.2024 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 16:40 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 →