RAJESH KUMAR DAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3658/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01019225202511 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 judgment in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024), the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief. The Court allowed the petition, resulting in the quashing of the impugned notice dated 17.04.2023 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 counsel and the precedent established in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree and a prior judgment exists granting similar relief on similar grounds, the court should follow that precedent to ensure consistency and avoid multiplicity of litigation. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged an order and consequential proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to a notice dated 17.04.2023. The High Court, through a bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, heard the matter. Both the petitioner and the respondents (Income Tax Department) agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, decided on 10.09.2026. This agreement was reached in light of the judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 17.04.2023 issued to the petitioner 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 petitioner argued that they should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024), which was decided on 10.09.2026. This implies that the petitioner sought to have the reassessment proceedings quashed based on the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. Revenue's Contention: The respondents-Income Tax Department, through their Sr. Standing Counsel, agreed with the petitioner's submission. They consented to the petitioner being granted the same relief as in the cited case, indicating their acceptance of the grounds on which the Jyoti Sareen judgment was based or their agreement to dispose of the matter on similar terms.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

113 113 113 113

IN T IN T IN T IN T

RAJESH KUM RAJESH KUM RAJESH KUM RAJESH KUM INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M 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 1 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 CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

MAR DAWAR MAR DAWAR MAR DAWAR MAR DAWAR

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 Ms. Divya Arora, Advocate and Mr. Amit Kaushik, Advocate, for t 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 17.04.2023 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-3658 3658 3658 3658-2025 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 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 (SUNISH (SUNISH (SUNISH BINDLISH) BINDLISH) BINDLISH) 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 →