BHIWANI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21005/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01114631202525 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 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 the consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed in terms of the Jyoti Sareen case. Consequently, the notice dated 28.06.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a precedent being applied, the court will follow that precedent to grant similar relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bhiwani Industries Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous High Court judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). The parties agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned case. The impugned action under challenge was a notice dated 28.06.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the High Court judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they should receive the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case, based on a consensus reached with the revenue. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner beyond this consensus. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned counsel, agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue beyond this agreement.

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-21005-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.09.2026 BHIWANI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present : Ms. Simmy Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Jr. Standing counsel and Ms. Muskan Gupta, 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 →