RADHA SOAMI SATSANG BEAS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30740/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01159852202618 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 is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024). Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 30.06.2026 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the agreement of the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to parity with a previous judgment, the court will grant similar relief. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, challenged a notice dated 30.06.2026 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, and others. The parties agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh on 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024, titled Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment.

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)? (Question of law) 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 provision was named, but the argument relies on the principle of parity and consistency in judicial pronouncements. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed with the petitioner's submission that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen's case. No specific legal provision was named in their agreement.

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.142 CWP-30740-2026 Date of decision: 18.09.2026 RADHA SOAMI SATSANG BEAS ..... Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH AND ORS ..... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present : Ms. Ekakshra Mahajan, 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 30.06.2026 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 →