KIRANJEET KAUR KOCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 6(1)

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28509/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01143738202414 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 parties and following the precedent set in the case of Jyoti Sareen (CWP-15791-2024), the petition should be allowed. The court quashed the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties to grant the same relief as previously awarded in a similar writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that where parties consent and a clear precedent exists for similar relief, the court should grant that relief to avoid multiplicity of litigation and ensure consistency. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kiranjeet Kaur Kochar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged an action taken by the Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings. The High Court noted that the parties had agreed to the same relief as granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others), decided on 10.09.2026. This prior judgment was based on a notice dated 30.08.2024 issued to the petitioner. The court also considered a notice dated 14.09.2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are valid and should be quashed, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the relief granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen (CWP-15791-2024) should be extended to the present petitioner. The assessee relied on the principle that similar cases should receive similar treatment, especially when parties consent to such an outcome. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned case. This implies the revenue did not contest the quashing of the proceedings based on the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case and the consent of the parties.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

263 263 263 263

IN T IN T IN T IN T KIRANJEET K KIRANJEET K KIRANJEET K KIRANJEET K INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : 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.

2026 14.09.2026 14.09.2026 14.09.2026 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

KAUR KOCHAR KAUR KOCHAR KAUR KOCHAR KAUR KOCHAR

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER X OFFICER X OFFICER X OFFICER LUDHIANA LUDHIANA LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PUN PUN PUN PUN ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 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, fo Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing C r the respondents-Income Tax D ** AL, J.

AL, J.(Oral) (Oral) (Oral) (Oral) 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 30.08.2024 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-28509 28509 28509 28509-2024 2024 2024 2024 ate of Decision : 14.09.2026 ate of Decision : 14.09.2026 ate of Decision : 14.09.2026 ate of Decision : 14.09.2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER NJAB NJAB NJAB NJAB ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH r the petitioner. Counsel 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 2026.09.17 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →