RAJENDER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/4817/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01024124202414 July 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in light of the consensus reached by the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case, allowed the petition. The Court ordered the quashing of the impugned notice dated 31.03.2022, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The operative direction was to grant the relief sought by the petitioner, effectively nullifying the tax proceedings initiated by the impugned notice. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This is a judgment from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana concerning a writ petition filed by Actor Company. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous case, Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India. The core of the dispute revolves around a notice dated 31.03.2022 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The parties, through their learned counsel, have reached a consensus on the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 31.03.2022 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed, in light of the consensus reached by the parties and the relief granted in Jyoti Sareen's case. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that they should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, citing the consensus reached with the respondents. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, represented by their learned counsel, agreed to the petitioner's request for similar relief based on the consensus, implying acceptance of the petitioner's position.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

294 294 294 294

IN T IN T IN T IN T INDIAN TRA INDIAN TRA INDIAN TRA INDIAN TRA UNION OF IN UNION OF IN UNION OF IN UNION OF IN

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 3 Income Tax Ac

10.09 10.09 10.09 10.09.2026 .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

ACTOR COMPANY ACTOR COMPANY ACTOR COMPANY ACTOR COMPANY

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS NDIA AND OTHERS NDIA AND OTHERS NDIA AND OTHERS NDIA AND OTHERS

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. Prince Goyal, Advocate, for th 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 31.03.2022 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-28900 28900 28900 28900-2026 2026 2026 2026 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 10.09. 10.09. 10.09. 10.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH he 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 2026.09.13 12:00 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 →