AMARJIT GANDHI vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30388/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01155288202414 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the petition is allowed in terms of the judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), dated 10.09.2026. The Court found that both parties had agreed to the same relief as granted in the precedent case. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 22.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to the same relief as granted in a prior binding precedent, the court should follow that precedent to dispose of the current matter. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings.

What were the facts?

This case involves a writ petition filed by Amarjit Gaba (the petitioner) against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another (the respondents). The petitioner sought to quash an order and consequential proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in its order dated 14.09.2026, noted that learned counsel for both parties had agreed to the same relief as granted in a previous writ petition, CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, decided on 10.09.2026. Based on this consensus and in light of the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case, the petition was allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 22.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the relief sought should be granted based on the consensus reached by the parties and the precedent set in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India. The assessee relied on the judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case to support their claim for quashing the notice and proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned counsel, agreed to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. This implies the revenue did not contest the quashing of the notice and proceedings, consenting to the outcome based on the precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

114 114 114 114

IN T IN T IN T IN T

AMARJIT GA AMARJIT GA AMARJIT GA AMARJIT GA PR COMMISS PR COMMISS PR COMMISS PR COMMISS ANOTHER ANOTHER ANOTHER ANOTHER

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 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 AT AT AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

ANDHI ANDHI ANDHI ANDHI

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS SIONER OF INCOME TAX, L SIONER OF INCOME TAX, L SIONER OF INCOME TAX, L SIONER OF INCOME TAX, L

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI SUNI SUNI SUNI Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocate, fo Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing C r. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Co 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 22.03.2024 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-30388 30388 30388 30388-2024 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 LUDHIANA AND LUDHIANA AND LUDHIANA AND LUDHIANA AND ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH or the petitioner. Counsel with unsel, 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 2026.09.16 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 →