MANIK MAHAJAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DCITACIT CIRCLE 31, AMRITSAR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30119/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01155498202616 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 following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, allowed the writ petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 16.06.2026 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the consensus reached by the parties, acknowledging the relief granted in the cited case. The principle established is that if a similar case has been decided favorably based on consent and precedent, the same relief can be extended to another petitioner in a writ proceeding, provided there is agreement between the parties. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manik Mahajan, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an action taken by the revenue. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 31, Amritsar, had initiated proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by issuing a notice dated 16.06.2026. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India), decided on 10.09.2026. The parties agreed to a consent order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued by the revenue under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid and warrants further proceedings? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice issued under Section 148 should be quashed, seeking parity with the relief granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India. The assessee relied on the judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned counsel, agreed to the petitioner's request for relief based on the consent order and the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case. No specific arguments were recorded against the assessee's plea.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

123 123 123 123

IN T IN T IN T IN T MANIK MAH MANIK MAH MANIK MAH MANIK MAH ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT CIRCLE 31, A CIRCLE 31, A CIRCLE 31, A CIRCLE 31, A

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

16.09 16.09 16.09 16.09.2026 .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

HAJAN HAJAN HAJAN HAJAN

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

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. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate (T Mr. Ish Karan Singh Chhabra, Adv Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Coun s. Pridhi Sandhu, Advocate and s. Nikita Garg, Jr. Standing Coun 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 16.06.2026 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-30119 30119 30119 30119-2026 2026 2026 2026 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 16.09. 16.09. 16.09. 16.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ME TAX, DCIT ME TAX, DCIT ME TAX, DCIT ME TAX, DCIT/ACIT ACIT ACIT ACIT

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH hrough VC) and vocate, for the petitioner.

nsel with

nsel, 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 2026.09.19 12:08 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 →