BALJIT KAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30600/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01157447202411 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 allowed the petition in terms of the judgment passed in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). The court quashed the impugned notice dated 01.04.2022 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the consensus between the parties that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the aforementioned precedent case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to follow a prior judgment of the same court on similar facts, the court will grant the same relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Baljit Kaur, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 01.04.2022 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The parties, through their learned counsel, agreed that the petitioner would receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the same court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 01.04.2022 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The petitioner sought the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024), implying a challenge to the validity of the Section 148 notice. Revenue's contention: The revenue's counsel agreed to the petitioner being entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen's case, indicating no opposition to the quashing of the notice based on the precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-30600-2024 (O&M) 215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-30600-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.09.2026 Baljit Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Ms. Ubhai Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Kavita, Advocate for 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 01.04.2022 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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →