RAJAN GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/34841/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01181008202415 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that based on the consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 28.03.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications. The reasoning is based on the agreed-upon parity with the Jyoti Sareen judgment, implying that the grounds for quashing in that case were applicable here. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to extend relief granted in a prior, similar case, the court will follow that consensus to quash notices issued under Section 148 and consequential actions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajan Gupta, filed a writ petition (CWP-34841-2024) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 28.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer. Both parties 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 judgment was delivered on 15.09.2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others) concerning the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings? (Question of law and fact). Assessee's contention: The petitioner relies on the consensus reached with the respondent that the relief granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen should be extended to the present petitioner. No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned by the petitioner's counsel in the judgment, other than referencing the prior court decision. Revenue's contention: The respondent, through the Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, agreed to the consensus that the petitioner should be granted the same relief as in the Jyoti Sareen case. No opposing arguments or reliance on specific authorities were recorded.

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.239 )

CWP-34841-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

RAJAN GUPTA .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER ` .....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 28.03.2023 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 16:12 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 →