GURMAIL SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11947/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01069743202314 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 reached between the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as has been granted in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, decided on 10.09.2026. The court allowed the petition, resulting in the quashing of the impugned notice dated 31.03.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings, if any. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to parity with a previous judgment, the court will grant the same relief to avoid multiplicity of litigation and ensure consistency, provided the facts and circumstances are analogous or the parties consent to such an approach.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vandana Yadav, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged an action taken by the Income Tax Officer, Mohali, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings. The High Court was informed that the petitioner sought the same relief as granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, decided on 10.09.2026. The respondents, represented by Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, agreed to this course of action. The court noted a notice dated 31.03.2023 issued to the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, in light of the consensus reached between the parties? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of parity and consent). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued, through their counsel, that they should be granted the same relief as was provided in the case of Jyoti Sareen, citing the consensus reached by the parties. No specific authorities or precedents were named for this argument, other than the implied reliance on the previous judgment. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, agreed to the petitioner's request for parity with the Jyoti Sareen judgment. No specific authorities or precedents were named by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

275 275 275 275

IN T IN T IN T IN T

GURMAIL SI GURMAIL SI GURMAIL SI GURMAIL SI INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M 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 3 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, MOHALI X OFFICER, MOHALI X OFFICER, MOHALI X OFFICER, MOHALI

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 Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing r. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing C s. Kavita, Advocate and s. Arushi Bansal, Advocate 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 31.03.2023 issued to the petitio ct, 1961 alongwith consequential

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye AB AND AB AND AB AND AB AND HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-11947 11947 11947 11947-2023 2023 2023 2023 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 r the petitioner. g Counsel with 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 2026.09.15 14:29 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 →