JATINDER SINGH DADRA AY 2016 TO 17 vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OSD, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30664/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01158469202618 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, in light of the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 17.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the prior judgment of the Court in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jatinder Singh Dadra, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice dated 17.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The respondents were the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle 1, Chandigarh, and others. The 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 explicitly stated in the provided text.

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) dated 10.09.2026, concerning a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that they should be granted the same relief as was awarded in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited by the petitioner's counsel in the provided text, beyond the reference to the prior judgment. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle 1, Chandigarh, and others, agreed with the petitioner that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited by the revenue's counsel in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-30664-2026 (O&M) 137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-30664-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.09.2026 Jatinder Singh Dadra ...Petitioner Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle 1, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr. Rochak Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Kavita, 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 17.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 18.09.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

-1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.22 12:59 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 →