AKSHEEN CHAHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/26084/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01134701202410 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 submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, agreed that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen and others (CWP-15791-2024), decided on 10.09.2026. In light of this consensus and the precedent, the petition was allowed. The court ordered the quashing of the 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 between the parties and the application of the principle established in the cited case, which likely dealt with similar issues concerning the validity of notices under Section 148. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vandana Yadav, filed a writ petition (CWP-26084-2024) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged an action taken by the Income Tax Department. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer and others. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024, involving Jyoti Sareen and others, decided on 10.09.2026. The impugned action appears to be related to proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The court considered a notice dated 26.03.2024 issued to the petitioner.

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, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of previous pronouncements of this Court. (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen's case (CWP-15791-2024), which was decided on 10.09.2026. This implies that the grounds for challenging the Section 148 notice in the present case are similar to those in the cited precedent. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen's case. This suggests the revenue did not contest the application of the precedent to the present case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

252 252 252 252

IN T IN T IN T IN T AKSHEEN CH AKSHEEN CH AKSHEEN CH AKSHEEN CH INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present: 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 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

HAHAL HAHAL HAHAL HAHAL

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. Vishal Bharti Gupta, Advocat r. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing C r. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Co 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 26.03.2024 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-26084 26084 26084 26084-2024 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 te, for the petitioner. Counsel with unsel, 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 2026.09.15 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 →