RATISH VERMA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12740/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01071519202410 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 CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). The Court quashed the impugned notices dated March 22, 2024, and April 8, 2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the consensus reached by the learned counsel for the parties. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to the same relief granted in a prior, similar case, the Court will grant that relief. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ratish Verma, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging notices dated March 22, 2024, and April 8, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh. The respondents are the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned notices and the subsequent filing of the writ petition. The parties reached a consensus before the Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the High Court dated September 10, 2026, in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others)? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that they should receive the same relief as granted in the cited case, implying that the facts and legal grounds are similar or that the principle of parity should apply. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen's case, indicating no opposition to this course of action.

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.231 CWP-12740-2024 Date of decision: 10.09.2026 Ratish Verma ….Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Ms. Ruby, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing counsel and Ms. Kavita, Advocate 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 notices dated 22.03.2024 and 08.04.2024 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 14:29 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 →