DM COLLEGE OF EDUCATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12370/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01068340202410 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 07.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The reasoning is that both parties agreed to the application of the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to extend the benefit of a prior judgment to a subsequent case involving similar circumstances, the court will grant that relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, D.M. College of Education, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Moga, and others. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The order or action under challenge is a notice dated 07.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history is that the parties agreed that the petitioner would receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the High Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 07.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Contentions: Assessee: The petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024), implying that the notice under Section 148 should be quashed. Revenue: The revenue agreed with the petitioner that the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen's case should be extended to the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.296 CWP-12370-2024 Date of decision: 10.09.2026 D.M. College of Education ….Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Moga and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate (through VC) for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsel for the respondents. * * * 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 07.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE September 10, 2026 Jyoti 1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JYOTI SHARMA 2026.09.13 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity 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 →