AMAN RAI DHAMIJA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/4056/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01023365202511 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 07.03.2024 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 reached by both parties that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned precedent case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior binding precedent, the court will grant that relief. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aman Rai Dhamija, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 07.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ambala, 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 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others) concerning the impugned notice dated 07.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that they should be granted the same relief as was granted to Jyoti Sareen in a similar writ petition decided on 10.09.2026. No specific arguments were recorded for the petitioner beyond this consensus. Revenue's contention: The revenue (respondents) agreed with the petitioner that the same relief should be granted. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue beyond this consensus.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-4056-2025 (O&M) 222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-4056-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.09.2026 Aman Rai Dhamija ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ambala and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner. (through V.C.). Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms.Muskan Gupta, Advocate & Ms. Tanya Kumar, Advocate for 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 07.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 11.09.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

-1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.12 15:43 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 →