RAJAN KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18698/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01103744202509 July 2025Author: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition in terms of the judgment in Jyoti Sareen’s case. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 25.06.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning for this decision is based on the consensus reached by the counsel for both parties, agreeing that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the aforementioned precedent. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to extend the benefit of a prior judgment to a subsequent case, the court will uphold this consensus, leading to the quashing of the reassessment notice. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajan Kumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer and others. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The parties, through their learned counsel, agreed that the petitioner would receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the same court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The procedural history leading to this consensus is not detailed.

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)? (Question of law). The petitioner, through his counsel, argued that he should be granted the same relief as in the cited case. The revenue, through its counsel, agreed to this proposition. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for either side beyond this consensus.

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.119 )

CWP-18698-2025(O&M)

Date of decision : 17.09.2026 RAJAN 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. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Standing Counsel and

Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Junior Standing Counsel for

the respondent-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 25.06.2025 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

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 →