PARAS HEALTHCARE LTD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,FARIDABAD 2 NEW

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29713/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01152605202611 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in terms of a consent order and in light of the judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case, allowed the petition. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 13.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement between the parties that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the aforementioned precedent case. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Paras Healthcare Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged an order or action by the respondent, ACIT, Central Circle, Faridabad. The specific nature of the order or action and the assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the parties agreed to a consent order. The petitioner sought and was granted the same relief as in a previous judgment of the same court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024, titled Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. This relief was granted in light of a notice dated 13.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 13.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are valid and should be quashed? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee, Paras Healthcare Ltd., argued that they should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, based on a consent order. They sought the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential proceedings. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, represented by ACIT, Central Circle, Faridabad, agreed with the petitioner's request for relief. They consented to the petitioner receiving the same relief as granted in the cited case, leading to the quashing of the impugned notice and proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

162 162 162 162

IN T IN T IN T IN T

PARAS HEAL PARAS HEAL PARAS HEAL PARAS HEAL ACIT, CENTR ACIT, CENTR ACIT, CENTR ACIT, CENTR

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 1 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 AT AT AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

LTHCARE LTD LTHCARE LTD LTHCARE LTD LTHCARE LTD

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS RAL CIRCLE,FARIDABAD 2 RAL CIRCLE,FARIDABAD 2 RAL CIRCLE,FARIDABAD 2 RAL CIRCLE,FARIDABAD 2 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. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate ( r. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate, fo 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 13.03.2024 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-29713 29713 29713 29713-2026 2026 2026 2026 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 2 NEW 2 NEW 2 NEW 2 NEW ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH (Through VC) and or 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 2026.09.14 19:32 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 →