RAJ KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29586/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01150322202410 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in light of the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The Court followed its previous decision in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), which had quashed an impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the agreement of both the petitioner and the revenue to extend the relief granted in the earlier judgment to the present case. The operative direction is the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential proceedings. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Raj Kumar, sought to quash a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The petitioner and the respondents (Income Tax Officer and others) agreed that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, dated 10.09.2026, in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). This prior judgment, based on a notice dated 27.03.2024, had resulted in the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential proceedings.

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 and others, specifically concerning the quashing of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through their learned counsel, argued that they should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned judgment. This implies that the grounds for quashing in the Jyoti Sareen case are applicable to the present petitioner. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, through their learned Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, agreed with the petitioner's submission. They consented to the petitioner being granted the same relief as in the cited case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

259 259 259 259

IN T IN T IN T IN T RAJ KUMAR RAJ KUMAR RAJ KUMAR RAJ KUMAR 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 2 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

R

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. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for th s. 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 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-29586 29586 29586 29586-202 202 202 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →