KAMAL KALRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22064/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01112221202614 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in light of a consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 28.07.2022 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 petitioner the same relief as in the cited case. The principle established is that where a similar issue has been decided favorably for the assessee and the revenue consents, similar relief can be extended. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kamal Kalra, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging a notice dated 28.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others), decided on 10.09.2026. The respondents are the Income Tax Department. The case was heard through video conferencing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, implying that the notice and proceedings were flawed and should be set aside. The assessee relied on the judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue. However, the outcome suggests the revenue did not oppose the quashing of the notice and proceedings, given the consensus reached.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

274 274 274 274

IN T IN T IN T IN T

KAMAL KAL KAMAL KAL KAMAL KAL KAMAL KAL INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M fo (T **

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

LRA LRA LRA LRA

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 MR. ON’BLE MR. ON’BLE MR. ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI JUSTICE SUNI JUSTICE SUNI JUSTICE SUNI Mr. Sunil K. Mukhi, Advocate, for Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standi r the respondents-Income Tax D Through Video Conferencing) *** 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 28.07.2022 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-22064 22064 22064 22064-2026 2026 2026 2026 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. ing Counsel Department. 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 15:26 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 →