ASHISH BASIL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 1

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30138/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01153845202616 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 at Chandigarh, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case (CWP-15791-2024), allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 18.06.2026 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties to extend the relief granted in the cited case. The principle established is that if a similar case has been decided favorably and the revenue consents, the same relief should be granted. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ashish Bass, filed a writ petition (CW-30138-2026) challenging an action by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (Gurgaon), the respondent. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India). The core of the dispute revolves around a notice dated 18.06.2026 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The parties appeared before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 18.06.2026 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (CWP-15791-2024). No specific arguments were detailed in the judgment regarding the grounds for quashing the notice, but the reference to the Jyoti Sareen case implies reliance on its precedent. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, agreed to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. This indicates a concession or acceptance of the assessee's position based on the prior judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

127 127 127 127

IN T IN T IN T IN T ASHISH BAS ASHISH BAS ASHISH BAS ASHISH BAS ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT GURGAON GURGAON GURGAON GURGAON

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M

(T 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

SIL SIL SIL SIL

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, fo Through VC) 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

AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-30138 30138 30138 30138-2026 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 ME TAX CIRCLE 1 ME TAX CIRCLE 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 or 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 →