AMIT TULSYAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28667/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01144582202411 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition in terms of the judgment passed in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024). Consequently, the notice dated 06.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings were quashed. The reasoning is based on the consensus reached between the parties, wherein the petitioner was to receive the same relief as granted in the aforementioned precedent case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judicial pronouncement, the court will uphold that agreement and grant the consequential relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amit Tulsyan, challenged a notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Bhiwani, and others. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others), decided on 10.09.2026. The parties reached a consensus on this matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed, turning on the interpretation and application of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 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 (CWP-15791-2024). The revenue, through its senior standing counsel, agreed to this consensus. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for either side beyond this agreement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-28667-2024 (O&M) 211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28667-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.09.2026 Amit Tulsyan ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Bhiwani and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Ms. Aakanksha, Advocate and Ms. Shweta, Advocate for Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel (throughV.C.) for the respondent(s). 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 06.04.2023 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 →