PARDEEP KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19108/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01105706202511 July 2025Author: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in light of the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 06.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.15791 of 2024) decided on 10.09.2026. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential actions. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pardeep Kumar, filed a writ petition (CWP-19108-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The Income Tax Officer and others were the respondents. 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 assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.15791 of 2024) dated 10.09.2026, concerning the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through his counsel, agreed that he should be granted the same relief as was provided in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were detailed in the judgment, but the consensus implies the petitioner sought to quash the Section 148 notice based on grounds similar to those in the Jyoti Sareen case. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, agreed to the consensus reached by the parties. No specific arguments were detailed in the judgment, but their agreement suggests they did not oppose the application of the Jyoti Sareen judgment to the present case.

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.122 )

CWP-19108-2025(O&M)

Date of decision : 17.09.2026 PARDEEP KUMAR .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER 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.

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel,

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel for

the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department.

* * * 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 06.04.2023 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

17.09.

2026

( SUNISH BINDLISH ) shamsher/sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable

: Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.09.18 16:45 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 →