AGGARWAL VIDYA PRACHARNI SABHA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30211/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01162976202514 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, comprising Justices Deepak Sibal and Sunish Bindlish, allowed the petition. The court's decision was based on the consensus reached by both the petitioner and the revenue that the petitioner was 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). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 27.04.2024 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 be bound by a prior judgment on similar facts and issues, the court will extend that relief. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aggarwal Vidya Pracharni Sabha, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 27.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Both the petitioner and the revenue agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief granted in a previous judgment by the same court on 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (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 the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024) decided on 10.09.2026, concerning a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, agreed that it would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were detailed, but the consensus implies reliance on the precedent set in that case. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, also agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. This indicates the revenue did not contest the application of the previous judgment to the present case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-30211-2025 (O&M) 179 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-30211-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.09.2026 Aggarwal Vidya Pracharni Sabha ...Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr.Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate with Ms. Ubhai Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. (through V.C.). Mr.Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Nikita Garg, 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 27.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 14.09.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

-1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.17 09:00 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 →