KARAMVIR SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2464/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01014261202511 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (CWP-15791-2024), the petition should be allowed. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 23.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to parity of relief with a prior judgment, and that prior judgment quashed a notice under Section 148, the present petition should also be allowed to that extent. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Karamvir, filed a writ petition challenging an action taken by the Revenue under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court noted that the parties had agreed to the same relief as granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, decided on 10.09.2026. This prior judgment had granted relief in terms of a notice dated 23.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and quashed consequential proceedings. The present petition was disposed of in light of this consensus.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 23.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee relied on the consensus reached by the parties and the relief granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (CWP-15791-2024), seeking similar relief. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue agreed to the same relief as granted in the cited case, indicating no opposition to 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

111 111 111 111

IN T IN T IN T IN T

KARAMVIR KARAMVIR KARAMVIR KARAMVIR INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M

M

M

M **

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

11.

09 11.09 11.09 11.09.2026 .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

SINGH SINGH SINGH SINGH

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER AND OTHERS X OFFICER AND OTHERS X OFFICER AND OTHERS X OFFICER AND OTHERS 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. Rohit Kaura, Advocate, for the Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Tanya Kumar, for the respond *** 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 23.03.2024 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-2464 2464 2464 2464-2025 2025 2025 2025 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 11.09. 11.09. 11.09. 11.09.2026 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 with dents. 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 16:46 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 →