SATISH KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1107/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01006841202511 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition in terms of the judgment passed in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024). Consequently, the notice dated 04.04.2022 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the consensus reached by both parties, who agreed that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned precedent case. The specific grounds for quashing in Jyoti Sareen's case, which form the basis of this decision, are not detailed in the provided text. The operative direction is the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential actions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Satish Kumar, challenged a notice dated 04.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jind, and others. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Both the petitioner's counsel and the senior standing counsel for the revenue agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024, titled Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 04.04.2022 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024), implying that the notice and proceedings were invalid for reasons similar to those in the cited case. No specific provision or authority was named by the petitioner's counsel in the judgment text. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel agreed to the petitioner receiving the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen's case, indicating their acquiescence to the quashing of the notice and proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-1107-2025 (O&M) 220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1107-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.09.2026 Satish Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jind and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Ms. Ubhai Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel (through V.C.) for the respondent(s)-revenue. DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the petitioner would also be entitled to the same relief as has been granted through a judgment of this Court dated 10.09.2026 passed in CWP-15791-2024- Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. 2. In the light of the above consensus, the petition is allowed in terms of Jyoti Sareen’s case (supra), resulting in quashing of the impugned notice dated 04.04.2022 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 11.09.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

-1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.14 18:06 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 →