KRISHNA POULTRIES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23410/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01123286202511 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition. The court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 passed in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 20.06.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. 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. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Krishna Poultries, filed a writ petition (CWP-23410-2025) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 20.06.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer and others. The case was heard by a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish. The judgment was delivered on 11.09.2026. The material facts revolve around the challenge to the Section 148 notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 20.06.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel agreed that the petitioner would be 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 and others). Revenue's Contention: The judgment records a consensus between the parties, implying the revenue also agreed to the petitioner receiving the same relief as in the cited case. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for either side beyond this consensus.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-23410-2025 (O&M) 235 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23410-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.09.2026 Krishna Poultries ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Ms. Akanksha, Advocate and Ms. Shweta, Advocate for Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Standing Counsel, Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Tanya Kumar, 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 20.06.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 11.09.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

-1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.15 17:02 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 →