RAJIV KUMAR LOHIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/16507/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01085139202410 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 between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), allowed the petition. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 19.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties and the prior judgment, indicating that the revenue did not contest the grounds for quashing. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajiv Kumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an order and notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and others. The case was heard through video conferencing. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India), decided on 10.09.2026. The parties agreed to a consent order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice and consequential proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed. (Question of law and fact). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that they should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, implying that the notice or proceedings were flawed. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed to the petitioner's request for relief based on the consent order and the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

119 119 119 119

IN T IN T IN T IN T RAJIV KUMA RAJIV KUMA RAJIV KUMA RAJIV KUMA INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present: M M fo (T **

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

AR LOHIA AR LOHIA AR LOHIA AR LOHIA

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. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for th Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standi r the respondents-Income Tax D Through Video Conferencing) *** 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 19.04.2024 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-16507 16507 16507 16507-2024 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. ing Counsel Department.

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 11:59 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 →