GURTEJ SINGH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/4057/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01023341202511 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (CWP-15791-2024), allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential reassessment proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties to extend the relief granted in the cited case to the present petitioner. The principle established is that if a similar case with identical facts and relief has been decided, and the parties agree to the same outcome, the court will grant that relief. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gurtej Singh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an action taken by the revenue. The revenue, in this case, the Commissioner of Income Tax and others, had issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the petitioner. This notice pertains to reassessment proceedings. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner sought to have this notice and any consequential proceedings quashed. The matter was listed for hearing on 11.09.2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and mixed fact and law) The assessee (petitioner) argued that the notice and proceedings should be quashed. The revenue (respondents) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. The parties agreed that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous case, Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, decided on 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024. This suggests the petitioner's contention was based on the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

116 116 116 116

IN T IN T IN T IN T GURTEJ SING GURTEJ SING GURTEJ SING GURTEJ SING ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M 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 CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

GH GH GH GH

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 ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI SUNI SUNI SUNI Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocat s. Ubhai Bharti Gupta, Advocate Ms. Mamta Gupta, Advocate, for t Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing r. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing C s. Kavita, Advocate and s. Arushi Bansal, Advocate 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 16.01.2024 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-4057 4057 4057 4057-2025 2025 2025 2025 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 ME TAX AND OTHERS ME TAX AND OTHERS ME TAX AND OTHERS ME TAX AND OTHERS

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH te, e and the petitioner. g Counsel with 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 2026.09.14 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 →