DEEPAK ARORA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1

PDF · subscribers
CWP/20860/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01112964202514 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 Court allowed the petition. The impugned notice dated 30.06.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a precedent established by the same court in a similar matter, the court will follow that precedent to grant similar relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Deepak Arora, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice dated 30.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer. 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, titled Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024)? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner, through his counsel, agreed that he would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were detailed, but the consensus implies acceptance of the precedent. Revenue's contention: The respondent-revenue, through its Sr. Standing Counsel, also agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. This indicates an agreement with the application of the precedent to the present case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-20860-2025 (O&M) 172 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20860-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.09.2026 Deepak Arora ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr. Sunil K. Mukhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel 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 30.06.2025 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 →