M/S OMAXE NEW CHANDIGARH DEVELOPERS PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15690/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01087741202529 May 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 reached between the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 30.03.2023 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 of the parties that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as had been granted in a previous judgment of the Court 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 extend the benefit of a prior judgment to a subsequent, similar case, the court will uphold this consensus. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition (CWP-15690-2025) before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging a notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The respondents were the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle I and others. During the proceedings, learned counsel for both the petitioner and the respondents 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 a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they should be granted the same relief as in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific authorities or precedents were named by the petitioner in this regard, but the agreement with the revenue implies reliance on the principle established in the Jyoti Sareen judgment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned counsel, agreed that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen’s case. This implies the revenue accepted the applicability of the prior 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.118 )

CWP-15690-2025(O&M)

Date of decision : 17.09.2026 M/S OMAXE NEW CHANDIGARH DEVELOPERS PVT LTD .....Petitioner

Versus

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

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, 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 30.03.2023 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 →