SAROJ CHAUHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2462/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01014295202511 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 reached between the parties, allowed the petition. The Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as had been granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 passed in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 27.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, were quashed. The reasoning was based on the agreement of both parties and the application of the principle of parity with the earlier judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case, which presumably dealt with similar issues regarding the validity or issuance of the Section 148 notice. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Saroj Chauhan, filed a writ petition (CWP-2462-2025) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged a notice dated 27.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Rohit Kaur, and the respondents' counsel, Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal (Sr. Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department), appeared through video conferencing. Both parties agreed that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the High Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, dated 10.09.2026, in CWP-15791-2024, concerning a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they should be granted the same relief as was provided to the petitioners in the case of Jyoti Sareen, which involved a similar challenge to a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee relied on the principle of parity and the binding nature of the High Court's previous judgment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed with the assessee's submission and consented to the petitioner receiving the same relief as granted in the cited case. No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned by the revenue, other than their agreement to the prior judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

110 110 110 110

IN T IN T IN T IN T

SAROJ CHAU SAROJ CHAU SAROJ CHAU SAROJ CHAU 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

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

UHAN UHAN UHAN UHAN

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 Kaur, Advocate, for the 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 27.03.2024 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-2462 2462 2462 2462-2025 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 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 2026.09.15 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 →