GAGAN MAHANDRU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD

PDF · subscribers
CWP/811/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01005112202418 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. Based on the consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 31.03.2023, 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 extend the benefit of a prior judgment to a subsequent case, the court will grant such relief. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gagan Mahandru, filed a writ petition (CWP-811-2024) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the relief to be granted. The revenue is represented by Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of this Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued, and the revenue agreed, that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. Revenue's contention: The revenue concurred with the petitioner's submission that the relief granted in the Jyoti Sareen case should be extended to the present petitioner.

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. 103 CWP-811-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.09.2026 Gagan Mahandru

.…. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

..... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present : Mr. S. K. Mukhi, Advocate, for the petitioner

(through VC).

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel,

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 31.03.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. 3.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

[DEEPAK SIBAL]

JUDGE

11.09.2026

[SANJAY VASHISTH] shamsher

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.09.14 19:00 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 →