SHRI OM PARKASH BANSAL EDUCATIONAL, SOCIALWELFARE TRUST vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/20869/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01113001202524 July 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner is 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). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 28.06.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The reasoning is based on the consensus reached by the parties and the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to parity with a previous judgment, and that judgment granted specific relief, the same relief should be extended. The operative direction is the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Om Prakash Bansal Education & Social Welfare Trust, Mandi Gobindgarh, challenged a notice dated 28.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned notice. The parties agreed that the petitioner would receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the petitioner is 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, decided by the High Court on 10.09.2026. No specific arguments against the notice itself were detailed, but the reliance on the precedent implies grounds for challenge. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed that the petitioner should be granted the same relief as in the aforementioned case. No arguments were presented against the petitioner's claim for relief based on the precedent.

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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20869-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.09.2026 SHRI OM PRAKASH BANSAL EDUCATION & SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST, MANDI GOBINGARH ..... Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

..... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present : Ms. Simmy Gupta, 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. 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 28.06.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE 10.09.2026 (SUNISH BINDLISH) Jyoti 1

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No JYOTI SHARMA 2026.09.18 17:22 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 →