PARAMJIT SINGH vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3941/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01023100202511 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 and following the precedent set in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 30.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings that may have arisen therefrom. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties and the established relief granted in a similar matter. The principle established is that where parties agree and a similar precedent exists, the court will grant the same relief. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This case involves a writ petition filed by Paramjit Singh against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous case, Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, decided on 10.09.2026. The present petition was filed in light of a notice dated 30.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, initiating consequential proceedings. The parties, through their learned counsel, agreed to a consent order.

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 (CWP-15791-2024). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that they should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned case. They relied on the principle of parity and the consent order reached in the Jyoti Sareen case. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by learned Senior Standing Counsel, agreed to the petitioner's request for similar relief, indicating a consensus on the matter. No specific authorities or precedents were cited by either party in the judgment text provided, beyond the reference to the Jyoti Sareen case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

115 115 115 115

IN T IN T IN T IN T

PARAMJIT SI PARAMJIT SI PARAMJIT SI PARAMJIT SI PR COMMISS PR COMMISS PR COMMISS PR COMMISS ANOTHER ANOTHER ANOTHER ANOTHER

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M 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 3 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

INGH INGH INGH INGH

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS SIONER OF INCOME TAX, J SIONER OF INCOME TAX, J SIONER OF INCOME TAX, J SIONER OF INCOME TAX, J

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. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocate, fo Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Coun s. Pridhi Sandhu, Advocate and s. Nikita Garg, Jr. Standing Coun 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 30.03.2024 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-3941 3941 3941 3941-2025 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 JALANDHAR AND JALANDHAR AND JALANDHAR AND JALANDHAR AND ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH or the petitioner. nsel with nsel, 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 2026.09.14 19:32 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 →