LOKESH CHAND GUPTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1401/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01007839202514 September 2026Bench: 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, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of learned counsel for the parties and the prior judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case, which presumably dealt with similar grounds for challenging the reassessment notice. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Lokesh Chawla, filed a writ petition (CWP-1401-2025) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an order dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). The respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The matter was heard on 14.09.2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings). 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 and others, implying that the reassessment proceedings were flawed or unjustified. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue. However, the presence of the Commissioner of Income Tax as a respondent indicates their opposition to the petitioner's challenge.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

229 229 229 229

IN T IN T IN T IN T

LOKESH CHA LOKESH CHA LOKESH CHA LOKESH CHA ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M 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

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 CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

AND GUPTA AND GUPTA AND GUPTA AND GUPTA

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOM COMMISSIONER OF INCOM COMMISSIONER OF INCOM COMMISSIONER OF INCOM

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. Kartik Bansal, Advocate and s. Kritika Bansal, Advocate, for Mr. 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 30.08.2024 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-1401 1401 1401 1401-2025 2025 2025 2025 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 ME TAX AND OTHERS ME TAX AND OTHERS ME TAX AND OTHERS ME TAX AND OTHERS

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH 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 2026.09.17 15:25 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 →