KARTAR KAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7270/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01040494202515 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 petitioner would be 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). Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 31.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings were quashed. The reasoning for this decision was the mutual agreement of the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judicial pronouncement, the court will grant that relief. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kartar Kaur, filed a writ petition (CWP-7270-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer and others. The petitioner sought relief concerning a notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The matter was listed for hearing on 15.09.2026. The parties, through their learned counsel, reached a consensus regarding the relief to be granted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the High Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others)? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through her counsel, agreed that she would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific authorities or precedents were named for this contention. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, also agreed to the petitioner receiving the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. No specific authorities or precedents were named for this contention.

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.122 )

CWP-7270-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

KARTAR KAUR .....Petitioner

Versus

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

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, 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 31.03.2024 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 →