ANURAG DUA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30137/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01153869202616 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in light of the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The court directed that the petitioner, Anurag Dua, would be entitled to the same relief as was granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India). This relief specifically pertains to the quashing of the impugned notice dated 18.06.2026 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The court's decision was based on the agreement of the learned counsel for both the petitioner and the respondents, effectively disposing of the matter without a detailed examination of the merits of the Section 148 notice itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anurag Dua, filed a writ petition (CWP-30137-2026) challenging an order or action by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Gurgaon. The respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Department. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The parties, through their learned counsel, agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment on 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024, titled Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India. This relief pertains to a notice dated 18.06.2026 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (CWP-15791-2024) concerning a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned case, implying that the notice or proceedings initiated under Section 148 were flawed or required similar treatment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned counsel, agreed with the assessee's submission and consented to the petitioner receiving the same relief as in the cited case. This indicates the revenue did not contest the assessee's claim for similar relief.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

126 126 126 126 IN IN IN IN ANURAG DU ANURAG DU ANURAG DU ANURAG DU ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT GUR GUR GUR GURGAON GAON GAON GAON

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 1 Income Tax Ac

16.09 16.09 16.09 16.09.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 Vandana yadav

N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

UA UA UA UA

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. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate (T r. Ish Karan Chhabra, Advocate, 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 18.06.2026 issued to the petitio ct, 1961 alongwith consequential

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye NJAB AND HARYANA NJAB AND HARYANA NJAB AND HARYANA NJAB AND HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-30137 30137 30137 30137-2026 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 CIRCLE 1(1) ME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) ME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) ME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH hrough VC) and for 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 2026.09.19 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 →