GURINDER KAUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2652/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01015814202531 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the petition should be allowed in terms of the consensus reached by the parties. The petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the impugned notices dated 18.09.2026 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed. The reasoning was based on the mutual agreement of the parties and the prior judgment in the Jyoti Sareen case. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judicial precedent, the court will uphold that agreement to provide consistent relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gurinder Kaur, filed a writ petition (CWP-2652-2025) challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The respondent is the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024, involving Jyoti Sareen. This prior judgment, dated 12.01.2024 and 26.07.2024, had quashed the impugned notices and related proceedings. The parties, through their respective counsel, agreed that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as in the Jyoti Sareen case. Miscellaneous applications, if any, were also to be disposed of.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, in light of the consensus between the parties? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of precedent and consent). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that they should be granted the same relief as was provided in the case of Jyoti Sareen, as agreed upon by both parties. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through their counsel, agreed that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case, acknowledging the consensus. No specific authorities or precedents were named by either side in the judgment for this point, other than referencing the prior judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HI

Sr. No. 104 Gurinder Kaur Deputy Commis

CORAM : HO

Present : Mr

(th

for DEEPAK SIBAL 1.

Re taken on the reco 2.

Le entitled to the sa 10.09.2026 passe 3.

In Jyoti Sareen’s c 12.01.2024 and 2 Tax Act, 1961, a 4.

Pen

18.09.2026 shamsher

IGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HAR

Versus sioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUDEEPT r. S. K. Mukhi, Advocate, for the p hrough VC). r. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Cou s. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standing C s. Nikita Garg, Junior Standing Cou r the respondent(s)-revenue. * * * * * L, J. (Oral) ply filed on behalf of the responde ord. arned counsel for the parties agree ame relief as has been granted throu ed in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sar the light of the above consensus, case (supra), resulting in quashin 26.07.2024 issued to the petitioner alongwith consequential proceeding nding miscellaneous application(s)

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes

RYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-2652-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.09.2026

.…. Petitioner

..... Respondent SIBAL TI SHARMA etitioner unsel, Counsel and unsel ent, in Court today, is ordered to be e that the petitioner would also be ugh a judgment of this Court dated reen vs. Union of India and others. the petition is allowed in terms of ng of the impugned notices dated r under Section 148 of the Income gs, if any. ), if any also stand disposed of. [DEEPAK SIBAL] JUDGE [SUDEEPTI SHARMA] JUDGE s / No s / No

e e d

f d e SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.09.21 16:35 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 →