JIYA GOEL ALIAS JIYA LAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PANIPAT AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22338/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01121527202518 September 2026Bench: 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 & others). Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 28.08.2024, 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 agreement of the parties to follow the precedent established in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to a specific relief based on a prior High Court judgment, the court will grant that relief and quash the impugned notice and proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jiya Goel @ Jiya Lal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice dated 28.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panipat, and others. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves 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 a previous judgment of the High Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India & others)? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that they should receive the same relief as granted in the cited case, implying the notice under Section 148 was similarly flawed or invalid. The petitioner relied on the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its Sr. Standing Counsel, agreed with the petitioner's submission that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen's case. This indicates the revenue did not contest the application of the previous judgment to the present case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22338-2025 Date of decision: 18.09.2026 Jiya Goel @ Jiya Lal

… Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panipat & others … 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 28.08.2024 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 →