MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30171/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01156364202616 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). This consensus between the parties led to the allowance of the petition. The impugned notice dated 27.05.2025, 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 a specific outcome based on a prior, similar judgment of the same court, that outcome should be applied. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 27.05.2025 issued 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 through video conference. Both learned counsel for the petitioner and the revenue agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the same court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024, titled Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others.

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? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they should be granted the same relief as was provided in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case, based on the consensus reached between the parties. No specific provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was explicitly named by the petitioner in support of this argument, other than the implicit challenge to the notice under Section 148. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Sr. Standing Counsel, agreed with the petitioner's submission that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. No specific authorities, circulars, or precedents were named by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-30171-2026 (O&M) 130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-30171-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.09.2026 Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner. (through V.C.). Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent(s)-revenue. (through V.C.). 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 27.05.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 16.09.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

-1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.19 08:48 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 →