VINAY KAUSHAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX CIRCLE AAYAKAR BHAWAN

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9662/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01055205202414 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in light of the consensus between the parties and following its previous decision in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others) dated 10.09.2026, allowed the petition. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 08.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the mutual agreement of the parties to abide by the outcome of the Jyoti Sareen case, implying that the facts and legal grounds in the present case were similar enough to warrant the same relief. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior binding precedent, the court will grant that relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vinay Kaus, filed a writ petition challenging an action taken by the Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Panchkula (the revenue). The specific action under challenge was a notice dated 08.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana was hearing this matter. The judgment notes that the parties, through their learned counsel, 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 agreement led to the present petition being allowed in terms of the earlier judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 08.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the petition should be allowed and the impugned notice and proceedings quashed, seeking the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. No specific grounds for quashing were detailed in the provided text, but the reference to the prior case implies reliance on its reasoning. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its learned counsel, agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned judgment. This indicates the revenue did not contest the quashing of the notice and proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

252 252 252 252

IN T IN T IN T IN T

VINAY KAUS VINAY KAUS VINAY KAUS VINAY KAUS DEPUTY COM DEPUTY COM DEPUTY COM DEPUTY COM BHAWAN BHAWAN BHAWAN BHAWAN PA PA PA PA

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 THE HIGH COURT OF THE HIGH COURT OF THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA PUNJA PUNJA PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

SHAL SHAL SHAL SHAL

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS MMISSIONER INCOME TAX MMISSIONER INCOME TAX MMISSIONER INCOME TAX MMISSIONER INCOME TAX ANCHKULA ANCHKULA ANCHKULA ANCHKULA

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. Sunil K. Mukhi, Advocate, for 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 08.04.2024 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-9662 9662 9662 9662-2024 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 X CIRCLE AAYAKAR X CIRCLE AAYAKAR X CIRCLE AAYAKAR X CIRCLE AAYAKAR

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK PAK PAK PAK SIBAL SIBAL SIBAL SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH r 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 2026.09.19 11:39 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 →