ANIL KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2633/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01016341202614 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, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 23.05.2025, which was issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, all consequential proceedings, if any, were also quashed. The Court directed that the pending application(s), if any, would also stand disposed of. The reasoning was based on the agreement of both parties to extend the relief granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen (supra) to the present petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judicial precedent, the court will uphold that agreement to dispose of the matter efficiently.

What were the facts?

The case involves a writ petition filed by Anil Kumar (the petitioner) against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Faridabad, and others (the respondents). The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India. The judgment notes that the parties have reached a consensus. The petitioner's counsel and the respondents' counsel agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. This consensus led to the quashing of an impugned notice dated 23.05.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, in light of the consensus reached between the parties, concerning a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they should be granted the same relief as was provided in the judgment of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, based on a consensus with the revenue. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed with the assessee's submission and consented to the petitioner being granted the same relief as in the cited case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

273 273 273 273 IN IN IN IN ANIL KUMAR ANIL KUMAR ANIL KUMAR ANIL KUMAR INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M 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 2 Income Tax Ac

3.

Pe

14.

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

N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

R

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER WARD 1(1) FAR X OFFICER WARD 1(1) FAR X OFFICER WARD 1(1) FAR X OFFICER WARD 1(1) FAR

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. Kartik Bansal, Advocate and s. Kritika Bansal, 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 23.05.2025 issued to the petitio ct, 1961 alongwith consequential ending application(s), if any, sha

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye NJAB AND HARYANA NJAB AND HARYANA NJAB AND HARYANA NJAB AND HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-2633 2633 2633 2633-2026 2026 2026 2026 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) 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 RIDABAD AND OTHERS RIDABAD AND OTHERS RIDABAD AND OTHERS RIDABAD AND OTHERS

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH 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. all also stand disposed of. (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 15:26 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 →