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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30679/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01158291202618 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 dated 10.09.2026. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 07.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the consensus between the petitioner and the revenue to grant identical relief as in the cited case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to parity with a previous judgment on similar facts and legal grounds, the court will grant that relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jatinder Singh Dadra, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 07.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The respondents were the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1, Chandigarh, and others. Both the petitioner and the revenue agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same High 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 notice dated 07.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed, in light of the consensus between the parties regarding parity with the judgment in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. Contentions: Assessee: 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, based on the agreement reached with the revenue. Revenue: The revenue agreed with the petitioner's contention and conceded that the petitioner should be granted the same relief as in the aforementioned case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.140 CWP-30679-2026 Date of decision: 18.09.2026 JATINDER SINGH DADRA ..... Petitioner Versus THE JOINT COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH AND ORS ..... Respondent(s) 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 with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing counsel and Ms. Kavita, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. 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 07.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE 18.09.2026 (SUNISH BINDLISH) Jyoti 1

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No JYOTI SHARMA 2026.09.21 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity 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 →