RAJESH SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PANIPAT AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/20894/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01113904202518 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 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 & others. Based on the consensus between the parties, the Court allowed the petition. The reasoning was that both parties agreed to the same outcome as in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to a precedent being applied, the court will follow that consensus. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notice dated 28.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajesh Sharma, challenged a notice dated 28.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panipat. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The procedural history involves the issuance of the Section 148 notice and the subsequent filing of the writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The parties reached a consensus on the outcome of the present petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the High Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India & others. No specific grounds were detailed, but the argument implies the notice suffers from similar infirmities as in the cited case. Revenue's contention: The respondents-revenue agreed with the petitioner's submission that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were recorded against the quashing of the notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20894-2025 Date of decision: 18.09.2026 Rajesh Sharma

… Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panipat & another … Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Ms. Divya Arora & Mr. Amit Kaushik, Advocates for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel (through VC)

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 & 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

(SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE September 18, 2026 rps Whether speaking/reasoned

Yes/No Whether reportable

Yes/No RATTAN PAL SINGH 2026.09.21 12:26 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 →