RAJAN GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/34960/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01180938202414 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 the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 24.02.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties and the prior judgment which had already addressed a similar challenge. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to similar relief granted in a binding precedent, the court will extend that relief. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, an assessee, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The High Court noted that the parties had agreed to the same relief as granted in a previous case, Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, decided on 10.09.2026. This prior judgment had quashed the impugned notice dated 24.02.2024 and all consequential proceedings. The present case involved a similar notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court was presented with a consensus between the petitioner and the revenue.

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 the validity of reassessment proceedings). Assessee's Contention: The assessee sought to have the notice and consequential proceedings quashed, relying on the relief granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, which had quashed a similar notice. The assessee implicitly argued that the facts and legal grounds in their case warranted the same outcome. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed with the petitioner that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India. This indicates the revenue did not oppose 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

267 267 267 267

IN T IN T IN T IN T

RAJAN GUPT RAJAN GUPT RAJAN GUPT RAJAN GUPT INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

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 CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

TA TA TA TA

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. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI Mr. Sunil K. Mukhi, Advocate, for r. 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 24.02.2024 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-34960 34960 34960 34960-2024 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

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH r 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 →