RAJESH PURI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9011/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01049490202628 April 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action and to challenge the order dated 30.03.2026 passed under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court explicitly clarified that by granting this liberty, it had neither commented on the merits nor on the maintainability or entertainability of any remedy the petitioner might invoke in the fresh petition. The decision was based solely on the petitioner's submission and request for withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajesh Puri, filed a writ petition (CWP-9011-2026) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, challenging an action by the respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, an order dated 30.03.2026, passed under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the current petition with liberty to file a fresh one, which would include challenging the newly served order dated 30.03.2026, and to pursue the same cause of action.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action and to challenge the order dated 30.03.2026 passed under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an order dated 30.03.2026, passed under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been served upon the petitioner after the filing of the present petition. Therefore, the petitioner requested permission to withdraw the current petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action and to challenge the aforesaid order dated 30.03.2026. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271DA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.124 CWP-9011-2026 Date of decision: 28.04.2026 Rajesh Puri ....Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Abhinav Narang, 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 petitioner submits that after filing of this petition an order dated 30.03.2026, passed under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been served upon the petitioner and therefore, he be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action as also to challenge therein the aforesaid order dated 30.03.2026. 2. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 3. It is clarified that while granting the afore liberty, we have neither commented on the merits nor the maintainability/entertainability of JYOTI SHARMA 2026.04.29 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

CWP-9011-2026 -2- the remedy that the petitioner may invoke in terms of the liberty granted through the instant order. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE April 28, 2026 Jyoti 1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JYOTI SHARMA 2026.04.29 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

More judgments on Section 271DA

All 211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271DA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →