RADHA SOAMI SATSANG BEAS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23100/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01122787202614 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 and others). Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 12.06.2026, 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 where parties agree to follow a precedent set by the same court in a similar matter, the court will grant the same relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 12.06.2026 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The revenue was represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle 1(1), Chandigarh, and others. The parties agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the same court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024) decided on 10.09.2026, concerning a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they should be granted the same relief as was awarded in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific authorities or precedents were named for this argument in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed with the petitioner that the same relief should be granted. No specific authorities or precedents were named for this agreement in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-23100-2026 (O&M) 183 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23100-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.09.2026 Radha Soami Satsang Beas ...Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle 1(1), Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Ms. Ekakshra Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Kavita, 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 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 12.06.2026 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 14.09.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

-1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.15 17:26 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 →