RAJINDER SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14133/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01077045202414 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 between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case, allowed the petition. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 25.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a previous judgment granting similar relief, the court will extend that relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and proceedings. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajinder Singh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged an action taken by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1. 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 court considered a notice dated 25.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The parties agreed to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 25.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings should be quashed? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the petition should be allowed and the impugned notice and consequential proceedings quashed, based on the relief granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India. Revenue's Contention: The revenue consented to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case, implying agreement with the assessee's prayer for quashing the notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

257 257 257 257

IN T IN T IN T IN T

RAJINDER S RAJINDER SI RAJINDER S RAJINDER SI INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M fo (T **

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

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

INGH INGH INGH INGH

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER WARD 1 X OFFICER WARD 1 X OFFICER WARD 1 X OFFICER WARD 1

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. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate, for the Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standi r the respondents-Income Tax D Through Video Conferencing) *** 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 25.04.2024 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-14133 14133 14133 14133-2024 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

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH e petitioner. ing Counsel Department.

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 →