KAVITA ARYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN , KARNAL HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10605/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01058492202514 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that, in light of the consensus between the learned counsel for the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024), the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief. The court found that the petition was allowed in terms of the prior judgment. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 06.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings were quashed. The ratio of this decision is that where parties agree to follow a binding precedent, and the facts are analogous, the court will grant similar relief to uphold consistency and judicial economy. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kavita Arya, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an action by the Income Tax Officer, Aaykar Bhawan, Karnal, Haryana. The specific action under challenge appears to be a notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings. The judgment notes that the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the same court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. This prior judgment resulted in the quashing of an impugned notice dated 06.04.2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, concerning the validity of the notice under Section 148). The Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that they should be granted the same relief as was provided in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, CWP-15791-2024. This implies that the assessee believed the facts and legal grounds in their case were similar to the precedent case, warranting a similar outcome. The Revenue's contention: The Revenue's counsel agreed with the assessee's submission that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. This indicates the Revenue did not contest the application of the precedent to the present case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

269 269 269 269

IN T IN T IN T IN T

KAVITA ARY KAVITA ARY KAVITA ARY KAVITA ARY INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : 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 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

YA YA YA YA

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAW X OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAW X OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAW X OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAW

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 Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing r. 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 06.04.2023 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-10605 10605 10605 10605-2025 2025 2025 2025 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 WAN , KARNAL HARYANA WAN , KARNAL HARYANA WAN , KARNAL HARYANA WAN , KARNAL HARYANA

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH e 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 A 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 →