GAUTAM SAREEN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/33875/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01175361202416 December 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, based on the consensus reached between the parties, allowed the petition. The court found that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 30.03.2024 in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen’s case. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 10.09.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed. All consequential proceedings, if any, and pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to a precedent set by a coordinate bench, the court will follow that consensus to provide similar relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gautam Sareen, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana challenging a notice dated 10.09.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The petitioner sought the same relief as granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. The revenue was represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana, and others. The procedural history indicates that the parties agreed to a consensus, leading to the disposal of the petition.

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), concerning a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that they should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned case, implying that the notice issued to them under Section 148 was liable to be quashed on similar grounds. The revenue did not present any arguments against this consensus, as recorded in the judgment. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of the Section 148 notice and whether it was vitiated by the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HI

Sr. No. 6 Gautam Sareen Assistant Comm

CORAM : HO

Present : Mr

for DEEPAK SIBA 1.

Le be entitled to the dated 10.09.202 and others. 2.

In of Jyoti Sareen’ 30.03.2024 issu 1961, alongwith 3.

Pen

11.09.2026 shamsher

IGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HAR

Versus missioner of Income Tax, Ludhian ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY r. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for the r. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standin r. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing r the respondent(s)-revenue. * * * * * AL, J. (Oral) arned counsel for the parties agr e same relief as has been granted 26 passed in CWP-15791-2024 – the light of the above consensus ’s case (supra), resulting in quash ued to the petitioner under Secti h consequential proceedings, if any nding miscellaneous application(s

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes

RYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-33875-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.09.2026

.…. Petitioner na and others ..... Respondents K SIBAL Y VASHISTH e petitioner. ng Counsel Counsel, ree that the petitioner would also through a judgment of this Court – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India s, the petition is allowed in terms hing of the impugned notice dated on 148 of the Income Tax Act, y. s), if any, also stand disposed of. [DEEPAK SIBAL] JUDGE [SANJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE s / No s / No

o t a s d , SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.09.16 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →