VIJAYANT KUMAR BANSAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD GOBINDGARH PUNJAB

PDF · subscribers
CWP/32041/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01163650202414 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case, allowed the petition. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 05.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential assessment proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the learned counsel for both the petitioner and the respondents to grant the same relief as was previously awarded in the cited case. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vijayant K. Kumar Bansal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged an action by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 6(1), Chandigarh, specifically a notice dated 05.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential assessment proceedings. The High Court noted that the parties agreed to the petitioner receiving the same relief as granted in a previous judgment on 14.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. This prior judgment had quashed the impugned notice and consequential proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The assessee relied on the consent of the parties and the relief granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, arguing for the quashing of the impugned notice and proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The revenue consented to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case, implying an agreement to the quashing of the proceedings based on the precedent established.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

266 266 266 266

IN T IN T IN T IN T

VIJAYANT K VIJAYANT K VIJAYANT K VIJAYANT K INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present: M

M M M M fo **

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 0 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

KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR BANSAL

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER, ITO X OFFICER, ITO X OFFICER, ITO X OFFICER, ITO WARD GOB WARD GOB WARD GOB WARD GOB

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. Salil Dev Singh Bali, Sr. Advo Ms. Simmy Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Dhanda, Advocate, f Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Jr. Standin r the respondents.

*** 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 05.04.2024 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-32041 32041 32041 32041-2024 2024 2024 2024 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 BINDGARH PUNJAB BINDGARH PUNJAB BINDGARH PUNJAB BINDGARH PUNJAB

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ocate with for the petitioner. Counsel with ng Counsel, 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 2026.09.17 12:00 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 →