RAJNI BHATIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12571/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01072921202314 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in light of the consensus reached between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajni Bhat, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India. The respondents are the Income Tax Department. The matter was listed for hearing on 14.09.2026. The parties have arrived at a consensus regarding the relief to be granted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed, in light of the consensus reached between the parties and the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the relief granted in Jyoti Sareen's case should be extended to the present petitioner. The assessee relied on the consensus reached with the revenue. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen's case, indicating a consensus. No specific authorities or precedents were named by the revenue in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

250 250 250 250

IN T IN T IN T IN T

RAJNI BHAT RAJNI BHAT RAJNI BHAT RAJNI BHAT INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M M M for **

DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB

1.

Le also be entitled this Court date Union of India

2.

In terms of Jyoti notice dated 3 Income Tax Ac

14.

09 14.09 14.09 14.09.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 Vandana yadav

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

IA IA IA IA

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER, FARIDABAD X OFFICER, FARIDABAD X OFFICER, FARIDABAD X OFFICER, FARIDABAD ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI Mr. Sunil K. Mukhi, Advocate, for Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Coun s. Pridhi Sandhu, Advocate and s. Nikita Garg, Jr. Standing Coun r the respondents-Income Tax D *** BAL AL BAL AL, J. , J. , J. , J.(O (O (O (Oral ral ral ral) earned counsel for the parties a d to the same relief as has been ed 10.09.2026 passed in CWP- a and others. n the light of the above consen i Sareen’s case (supra), resulting 31.03.2023 issued to the petitio ct, 1961 alongwith consequential

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye

AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-12571 12571 12571 12571-2023 2023 2023 2023 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 14.09. 14.09. 14.09. 14.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH r the petitioner. nsel with nsel, epartment. agree that the petitioner would n granted through a judgment of -15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. nsus, the petition is allowed in g in quashing of the impugned oner under Section 148 of the l proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE es/No es/No d f . n d e VANDANA YADAV 2026.09.16 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →