ABHIMANYU DESWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22958/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01121263202410 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, allowed the petition. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the cited case. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 23.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings were quashed. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Abhimanyu, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged an order dated 23.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The petitioner sought the same relief as granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and others. The judgment notes that the parties agreed to the same relief as granted in the cited case.

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, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to be entitled to the same relief as granted in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, implying that the notice and proceedings should be quashed based on the precedent. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Sr. Standing Counsel, agreed that the petitioner would also be entitled to the same relief as has been granted in the aforementioned judgment. This indicates an agreement to quash the impugned notice and proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

109 109 109 109

IN T IN T IN T IN T ABHIMANYU ABHIMANYU ABHIMANYU ABHIMANYU INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present: M M fo

**

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

10.

09 10.09 10.09 10.09.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 Vandana yadav

THE THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA HIGH COURT OF PUNJA HIGH COURT OF PUNJA HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

U DESWAL U DESWAL U DESWAL U DESWAL

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER AND ORS X OFFICER AND ORS X OFFICER AND ORS X OFFICER AND ORS

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE MR. ON’BLE MR. ON’BLE MR. ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI JUSTICE SUNI JUSTICE SUNI JUSTICE SUNI Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for th Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing r the respondents. *** 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-22958 22958 22958 22958-2024 2024 2024 2024 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 10.09. 10.09. 10.09. 10.09.2026 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 he applicant-petitioner. Counsel 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 11:25 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 →