BHIWANI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21031/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01114623202514 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner (assessee) would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, dated 10.09.2026. Following this consensus and the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case, the Court allowed the petition. The impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, were quashed. The Court's decision was based on the agreement of the parties and the prior ruling, without delving into the merits of the specific case beyond the established precedent. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bhiwani Industries Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged an action taken by the revenue, specifically a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The High Court noted that the parties had agreed to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment, CWP-15791-2024, titled Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, dated 10.09.2026. This prior judgment had quashed the impugned notice and consequential proceedings. The present case was disposed of in light of this consensus and the relief granted in the Jyoti Sareen case.

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, turning on Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the impugned notice and consequential proceedings should be quashed, seeking the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. The assessee relied on the judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed that the petitioner (assessee) would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. The revenue did not present any arguments 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

270 270 270 270

IN T IN T IN T IN T

BHIWANI IN BHIWANI IND BHIWANI IN BHIWANI IND ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M

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 2 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

DUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITE DUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITE DUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITE DUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITE 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. ON’BLE MR. ON’BLE MR. ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI JUSTICE SUNI JUSTICE SUNI JUSTICE SUNI Mr. Salil Dev Singh Bali, Sr. Advo Ms. Simmy Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Dhanda, Advocate, f Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Jr. Standin 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 29.06.2025 issued to the petitio ct, 1961 alongwith consequential

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye AB AND AB AND AB AND AB AND HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-21031 21031 21031 21031-2025 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 ED ED ED ED ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ME TAX ME TAX ME TAX ME TAX ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ocate with for the petitioner. Counsel with ng Counsel, 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 15:26 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 →