SUKHCHAIN SINGH vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AMRITSAR AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/25101/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01131369202427 September 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition in terms of its previous judgment in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 27.02.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the consensus reached between the parties, wherein the revenue agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the cited precedent. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a previous binding precedent, the court will grant similar relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sukhchain Singh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice dated 27.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The respondents were the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar, and another revenue authority. The parties reached a consensus that the petitioner would receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). No specific assessment year or amount in dispute was recorded in this judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 27.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? 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 and others, decided on 10.09.2026 by this Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel agreed with the petitioner's submission, consenting to the same relief being granted. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for either party beyond this consensus.

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. 2 CWP-25101-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.09.2026

Sukhchain Singh

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

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present : Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, 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 27.02.2024 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 →