BANKEY BIHARI SPINNERS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIECTOR SH SHAM LAL GARG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PANIPAT AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19347/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01105191202514 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, in light of the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 26.06.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of counsel that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the prior judgment of the Court in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential actions. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bankey Bihari Spinners Private Limited, through its Director Sham Lal Garg, filed a writ petition (CWP-19347-2025) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panipat, and another. The petitioner sought relief against a notice dated 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The parties, through their respective counsel, agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the same Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 26.06.2025 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 argued that they are entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024), decided on 10.09.2026. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Sr. Standing Counsel, agreed with the petitioner's submission that the petitioner should be granted the same relief as in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-19347-2025 (O&M) 165 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19347-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.09.2026 Bankey Bihari Spinners Private Limited through its Director Sham Lal Garg ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panipat and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr.Amit Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. (through V.C.). Ms.Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. 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 26.06.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 14.09.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

-1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.17 19:53 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 →