ROHIT MEHTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 1 LUDHIANA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/17036/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093178202410 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case, the petitioner was entitled to the same relief. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 31.03.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to a similar outcome based on a prior binding precedent, the court should grant that relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and all consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This case involves a writ petition filed by Rohit Mehta (the petitioner) against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Ludhiana, and others (the respondents). The petitioner sought to quash a notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in its order dated 10.09.2026, noted that the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the same court in CWP-15791-2024, titled Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. Based on this consensus, the petition was allowed.

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 assessee (petitioner) argued that they should receive the same relief as granted in the aforementioned case, implying that the notice and proceedings were liable to be quashed. The assessee relied on the judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case. Revenue's Contention: The revenue (respondents) did not present any opposing arguments. The judgment states that the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the petitioner would also be entitled to the same relief as has been granted in the judgment of Jyoti Sareen's case. Therefore, no specific contention was recorded for the revenue against the assessee's claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

312 312 312 312

IN T IN T IN T IN T ROHIT MEHT ROHIT MEHT ROHIT MEHT ROHIT MEHT 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 3 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

TA TA TA TA

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER WARD 5 1 L X OFFICER WARD 5 1 L X OFFICER WARD 5 1 L X OFFICER WARD 5 1 LUDH UDH UDH UDH

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. Sholab Arora, Advocate, for th Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing C r. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Co 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 31.03.2024 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-17036 17036 17036 17036-2024 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 HIANA AND ORS HIANA AND ORS HIANA AND ORS HIANA AND ORS

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH he petitioner. Counsel with unsel, 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 →