SHREE GANESH COTTON INDUSTRIES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), MUKTSAR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18574/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01103056202508 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 held that, by consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the petition was allowed, and 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, was quashed. The reasoning is based on the parties' agreement to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior binding precedent of the same court, the court will grant that relief. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shree Ganesh Cotton Industries, filed a writ petition (CWP-18574-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Muktsar. The petition challenged a notice dated 25.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The parties, through their learned counsel, agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as was 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 in the judgment.

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 a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact, turning on the application of precedent). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, agreed that it would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were recorded beyond this consensus. Revenue's Contention: The respondent, through its counsel, also agreed to the petitioner receiving the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were recorded 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.143 )

CWP-18574-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

SHREE GANESH COTTON INDUSTRIES .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), MUKTSAR ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Abhinav 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 →