VERSATILE ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AMRITSAR AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21988/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01116862202403 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, decided on 10.09.2026. Based on this consensus between the parties, the Court allowed the petition. The impugned notice dated 29.08.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree that a petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a prior, similar case, the court will grant that relief. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Versatile Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition (CWP-21988-2024) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 29.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar, and other consequential proceedings. The revenue was represented by the Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent agreement between the parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, concerning the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (Question of law) The petitioner argued that they should receive the same relief as granted in a previous, similar case (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). The revenue, through its counsel, agreed with the petitioner's submission. No specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, circulars, or precedents were explicitly named in the arguments presented in this judgment, beyond the reference to the prior court decision.

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

Sr. No. 1 CWP-21988-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.09.2026

Versatile Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

.…. Petitioner Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar and others ..... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present : Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior 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 29.08.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. 3.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

[DEEPAK SIBAL]

JUDGE

11.09.2026

[SANJAY VASHISTH] shamsher

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.09.14 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →