ADESH KUMAR GUPTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR, KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13354/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01071508202414 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in agreement with both parties, allowed the petition. The Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 10.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that where parties consent and rely on a previous binding precedent of the same court, the court will extend the same relief to the present petitioner. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, an individual, is challenging a notice dated 10.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. S.K. Mukhi, and the Revenue's counsel, Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, appeared. Both parties agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by this Court on 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024, titled Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. This agreement was reached in light of the aforementioned judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 10.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, citing the judgment dated 10.09.2026. No specific legal grounds were detailed in the provided text, but the reliance on a prior judgment implies a challenge to the validity or applicability of the Section 148 notice based on principles established in that case. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel agreed with the assessee's submission and consented to the petitioner receiving the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. No independent arguments were presented by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

256 256 256 256

IN T IN T IN T IN T

ADESH KUM ADESH KUM ADESH KUM ADESH KUM DEPUTY COM DEPUTY COM DEPUTY COM DEPUTY COM

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

14.09 14.09 14.09 14.09.2026 .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 AT AT AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

MAR GUPTA MAR GUPTA MAR GUPTA MAR GUPTA

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS MMISSIONER OF INCOME T MMISSIONER OF INCOME T MMISSIONER OF INCOME T MMISSIONER OF INCOME T

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI SUNI SUNI SUNI Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate, for the 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 10.04.2024 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-13354 13354 13354 13354-2024 2024 2024 2024 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 14.09. 14.09. 14.09. 14.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER TAX CIR, KARNAL TAX CIR, KARNAL TAX CIR, KARNAL TAX CIR, KARNAL

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH e 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 2026.09.16 19:55 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 →