JATINDER KUMAR SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22189/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117107202410 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, upon considering the consensus between the learned counsel for the parties and in light of the previous judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), allowed the petition. The Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as was granted in the aforementioned case. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 14.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, were quashed. The Court did not leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jatinder Kumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an action taken by the Income Tax Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought to quash the notice issued under Section 148 and any consequential proceedings. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and others. The High Court, in a previous judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others), had granted relief to similarly situated petitioners. The present case was listed for hearing on 10.09.2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed. (Question of law and fact) The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen and others, implying that the notice and proceedings are vitiated. The revenue did not record any specific arguments against granting similar relief, as the judgment indicates a consensus on the matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

313 313 313 313

IN T IN T IN T IN T JATINDER KU JATINDER KU JATINDER KU JATINDER KU INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M M 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 1 Income Tax Ac

10.

09 10.09 10.09 10.09.2026 .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

UMAR SHARMA UMAR SHARMA UMAR SHARMA UMAR SHARMA

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER AND OTHERS X OFFICER AND OTHERS X OFFICER AND OTHERS X OFFICER AND OTHERS ON'BLE MR. ON'BLE MR. ON'BLE MR. ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE 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. Kanav Singla, Advocate, for th Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing r. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing C s. Kavita, Advocate and s. Arushi Bansal, Advocate 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 14.03.2024 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-22189 22189 22189 22189-2024 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 petitioner. g Counsel with 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 2026.09.13 12:00 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 →