M/S JASDEEP KAUR CHADHA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10273/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01059902202311 September 2026Bench: 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 held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen (supra). Consequently, the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings arising therefrom were quashed. The Court's reasoning was based on the parties' agreement to extend the relief granted in the cited precedent to the present petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judicial precedent, the court will uphold that agreement and grant the consequential relief.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Jasdeep, filed a writ petition challenging an action taken by the DCIT Circle, E-4, Jalandhar. The specific action under challenge appears to be related to proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The judgment notes that the parties have agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, dated 10.09.2026. This agreement was reached based on a notice dated 06.04.2023 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. (Question of law and fact) The assessee (petitioner) contended that they should be granted the same relief as was provided in the case of Jyoti Sareen (supra). The revenue (respondents) agreed to this proposition. The judgment does not record any specific arguments beyond this consensus, implying that the revenue did not contest the assessee's claim for relief based on the precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

245 245 245 245

IN T IN T IN T IN T

M/S JASDEEP M/S JASDEEP M/S JASDEEP M/S JASDEEP DCIT CIRCLE DCIT CIRCLE DCIT CIRCLE DCIT CIRCLE

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M

(T 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 0 Income Tax Ac

11.09 11.09 11.09 11.09.2026 .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

P KAUR CHADHA P KAUR CHADHA P KAUR CHADHA P KAUR CHADHA

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS E-4, JALANDHAR 4, JALANDHAR 4, JALANDHAR 4, JALANDHAR

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. Sunil K. Mukhi, Advocate, for Through VC) Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Coun s. Pridhi Sandhu, Advocate and s. Nikita Garg, Jr. Standing Coun 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 06.04.2023 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-10273 10273 10273 10273-2023 2023 2023 2023 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 11.09. 11.09. 11.09. 11.09.2026 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 r the petitioner. nsel with

nsel, 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 →