TANIA VERMA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/13607/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075045202410 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh allowed the petition. 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. This decision was based on the consensus reached by both parties that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated September 10, 2026, in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). The reasoning is that the parties agreed to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to extend the benefit of a prior judgment to a subsequent case involving similar circumstances or issues, the court will grant that relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tania Verma, challenged 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, and consequential proceedings. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The parties agreed that the petitioner would receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same Court in CWP-15791-2024, titled Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, decided on the same date.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices dated 22.03.2024 and 08.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings, are liable to be quashed? Assessee's contention: The petitioner sought the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024), implying agreement with the grounds and outcome of that case. The specific arguments are not detailed but are understood to be aligned with the precedent. Revenue's contention: The respondents, represented by Sr. Standing Counsel Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, agreed with the petitioner that the same relief granted in Jyoti Sareen's case should be extended to the petitioner. No independent arguments were recorded for the revenue.

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.233 CWP-13607-2024 Date of decision: 10.09.2026 Tania 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 14:15 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 →