MAGNA WIRES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 1 JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22024/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01116022202518 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, in light of the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 27.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of both the petitioner and the revenue that the petitioner should receive the same relief as was granted in the High Court's previous judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India & others). The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to parity with a previous judgment, the court will grant similar relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Magna Wires Private Limited, is challenging a notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1), Jalandhar. The case was listed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The parties, through their learned counsel, agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024, titled Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India & others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed, in light of the consensus reached by the parties regarding parity with the judgment in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India & others. 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 & others, citing the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned counsel, agreed with the petitioner's submission and consented to the relief being granted on the same terms as in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22024-2025 Date of decision: 18.09.2026 Magna Wires Private Limited

… Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1), Jalandhar … Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr. Kushagra Mahajan & Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Nikita Garg, Advocate

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 27.03.2025 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 →