VIJAY KUMAR ARORA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/4451/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01026134202514 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that in light of the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 passed in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 30.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific precedent being applied, the court will follow that precedent to grant similar relief. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vijay Kumar Arora, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 30.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Circle 1, Faridabad, and others. The parties, through their learned counsel, agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the same 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 30.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed, in light of the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. Assessee's contention: 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, citing the judgment dated 10.09.2026. No specific arguments were recorded beyond this consensus. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its learned counsel, agreed with the petitioner that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. No specific arguments were recorded beyond this consensus.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-4451-2025 (O&M) 125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-4451-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.09.2026 Vijay Kumar Arora ...Petitioner Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Circle 1, Faridabad and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr.Kartik Bansal, Advocate and Ms. Kritika Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel and Ms.Nikita Garg, Advocate for the 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 30.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 14.09.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No -1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.17 19:53 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 →