JASWINDER SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21415/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117334202514 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (CWP-15791-2024). Based on the consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 21.08.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed. Furthermore, all consequential proceedings, if any, arising from the said notice were also quashed. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree and a relevant precedent exists, the court will grant similar relief to maintain consistency and fairness. The court did not leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jaswinder Singh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an order/action under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The respondents are the Income Tax Department. The High Court, in light of a consensus between the parties and referring to a previous judgment in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India), allowed the petition. The court noted that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the cited case. The impugned notice dated 21.08.2024 was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the impugned notice and consequential proceedings should be quashed. While not explicitly detailed in the judgment, the assessee's prayer for relief implies a challenge to the validity or legality of the notice and proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The revenue consented to the relief sought by the petitioner. This implies that the revenue did not oppose the quashing of the notice and proceedings, likely based on the precedent set in the case of Jyoti Sareen.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

271 271 271 271

IN T IN T IN T IN T

JASWINDER JASWINDER JASWINDER JASWINDER 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 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 CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

SINGH SINGH SINGH SINGH

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER X OFFICER X OFFICER X OFFICER

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE ON’BLE ON’BLE ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI MR. JUSTICE SUNI MR. JUSTICE SUNI MR. JUSTICE SUNI Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate, for the Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing C 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 21.08.2024 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-21415 21415 21415 21415-2025 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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →