PIYUSH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1413/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01007601202503 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition in default. The primary reasons for dismissal were the persistent non-appearance of the petitioner or their counsel on two consecutive occasions, including after a remand order from the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to file an amendment application to challenge the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as might have been intended. The Court noted that the Registry had duly informed the counsel about the listing of the case. The judgment does not delve into the merits of any substantive issue related to the Income Tax Act, as the dismissal was procedural.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Piyush, is challenging an order or action by the Income Tax Officer and others. The case was previously remanded by the Supreme Court through an order dated 10.04.2026. This is the second consecutive occasion where no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner, despite the Registry informing the learned counsel about the listing of the case after the Supreme Court's remand. No amendment application was filed to challenge the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the absence of the petitioner or their counsel, and in light of the failure to file an amendment challenging the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after remand by the Supreme Court. Assessee's Contention: No specific arguments were recorded for the petitioner as none appeared. However, the context suggests the petitioner intended to challenge the vires of Section 147A. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's position is implicit in the dismissal of the petition due to non-appearance and lack of procedural compliance. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-1413-2025 (O&M) 111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1413-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 03.09.2026 Piyush ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: None for the petitioner. DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(Oral) 1. This is the second consecutive occasion when none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and this is in spite of the fact that the Registry has informed learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to listing of this case after remand by the Supreme Court through order dated 10.04.2026. 2. No amendment application has also been filed to include the challenge to the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Dismissed in default. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 03.09.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

-1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.07 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 147A

All 31 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →