BHARAT COTTON FACTORY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18596/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01102420202508 July 2025Author: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in light of the consensus between the petitioner and the respondent, allowed the petition. 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 was based on the agreement of the parties to follow the relief granted in the High Court's previous judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a binding precedent of the same court, the court will grant the same relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bharat Cotton Factory, filed a writ petition (CWP-18596-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer. The petition challenged a notice dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The parties, through their learned counsel, agreed that the petitioner should 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 assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.15791 of 2024), which was decided by the same Court on 10.09.2026. This implies that the petitioner likely adopted the grounds and arguments from the Jyoti Sareen case, which presumably challenged the validity of the Section 148 notice. Revenue's Contention: The respondent, Income Tax Department, through its Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, agreed with the petitioner's submission that the petitioner should be granted the same relief as in the Jyoti Sareen case. This indicates the revenue did not contest the quashing of the notice based on the precedent.

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.144 )

CWP-18596-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

BHARAT COTTON FACTORY .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Abhnav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel,

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel and

Ms. Kavita, Advocate 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 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

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 →