NEELIMA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/33562/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01174395202410 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 CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 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 reached between the learned counsel for the parties, who agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the cited case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judicial precedent, the court will follow that precedent to grant relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Neelima Gupta, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1), Ludhiana, and others. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent agreement between the parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.08.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that she should be granted the same relief as was granted in a previous judgment by the same Court in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. The revenue, through its learned counsel, agreed that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted 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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.274 CWP-33562-2024 Date of decision: 10.09.2026 Neelima Gupta

….Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 7(1), Ludhiana and others

….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsel for the respondents. * * * 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 30.08.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE September 10, 2026 Jyoti 1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JYOTI SHARMA 2026.09.13 14:29 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 →