JAGBIR SINGH VIRK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19035/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01104744202511 July 2025Author: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents (Income Tax Department), allowed the petition. The Court's decision was in terms of the relief granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 31.03.2025, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed. Any consequential proceedings arising from this notice were also quashed. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a precedent set by the same court, the court will follow that precedent to grant similar relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jagbir Singh Virk, filed a writ petition (CWP-19035-2025) before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging a notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The respondents were the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The parties, through their learned counsel, 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 No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The High Court considered this consensus in its decision.

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 No.15791 of 2024), concerning the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through his counsel, agreed that he would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were presented by the petitioner's counsel independently, but rather a consensus was reached based on the prior judgment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Senior Standing Counsel, also agreed to the consensus that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. No separate arguments were made by the revenue's counsel.

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.145 )

CWP-19035-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

JAGBIR SINGH VIRK .....Petitioner

Versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel

for the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department.

(appeared through VC)

* * * 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 No.15791 of 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 31.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings, if any. (3)

All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE

15.09.

2026

( SUNISH BINDLISH ) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2026.09.17 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. 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 →