RAJIV KUMAR AGGARWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28346/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01142084202411 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 29.08.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as had been granted in a previous judgment of the Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific precedent being applied, the court will follow that precedent to grant similar relief. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajiv Kumar Aggarwal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 29.08.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The revenue was represented by the Income Tax Officer and others. Both parties agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024, titled Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024) dated 10.09.2026, concerning a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, agreed that they would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were recorded for the petitioner beyond this consensus. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through their counsel, also agreed that the petitioner should be granted the same relief as in the Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue beyond this consensus.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-28346-2024 (O&M) 209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28346-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.09.2026 Rajiv Kumar Aggarwal ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Ms. Shweta, Advocate & Ms. Akanksha, 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 29.08.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 11.09.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

-1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.14 18:06 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →