KRISHAN LAL JAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), FARIDABAD HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10626/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01058638202515 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 court quashed the impugned notice dated 28.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a precedent set by the court in a similar case, the court will grant similar relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Krishan Lal Jat, filed a writ petition (CWP-10626-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Faridabad, Haryana. The petition challenged a notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The 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 court was considering the validity of the Section 148 notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the impugned notice should be quashed, and relief should be granted in terms of the judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case (CWP No.15791 of 2024). No specific arguments were detailed in the judgment for the assessee beyond this agreement. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed with the assessee that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen's case. No specific arguments were detailed in the judgment for the revenue 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.133 )

CWP-10626-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

KRISHAN LAL JAT .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), FARIDABAD, HARYANA ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Jasbir Mor, 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) 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 28.03.2025 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 →