GULSHAN ARORA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15891/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01086454202528 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 between the parties and following the precedent set in the case of Jyoti Sareen (supra), allowed the petition. The court quashed the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential assessment proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties to grant the petitioner the same relief as was granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gulshan Arora, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an action taken by the Income Tax Department. The specific action under challenge was a notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.03.2023, along with consequential assessment proceedings. The petitioner sought to have this notice and the subsequent proceedings quashed. The High Court noted that the parties had agreed to the same relief as granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, decided on 10.09.2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the notice and proceedings. The judgment does not explicitly detail the assessee's specific arguments beyond seeking this relief. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, did not present any arguments against the petitioner's request for relief. The judgment indicates a consensus between the parties.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

143 143 143 143

IN T IN T IN T IN T

GULSHAN A GULSHAN A GULSHAN A GULSHAN A INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M M for **

DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB

1.

Le also be entitled this Court date Union of India

2.

In terms of Jyoti notice dated 3 Income Tax Ac

11.

09 11.09 11.09 11.09.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 Vandana yadav

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

RORA RORA RORA RORA

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER AND OTHERS X OFFICER AND OTHERS X OFFICER AND OTHERS X OFFICER AND OTHERS ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate, for the Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing C r. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Co r the respondents-Income Tax D *** BAL AL BAL AL, J. , J. , J. , J.(O (O (O (Oral ral ral ral) earned counsel for the parties a d to the same relief as has been ed 10.09.2026 passed in CWP- a and others. n the light of the above consen i Sareen’s case (supra), resulting 31.03.2023 issued to the petitio ct, 1961 alongwith consequential

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye

AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-15891 15891 15891 15891-2025 2025 2025 2025 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 11.09. 11.09. 11.09. 11.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH e petitioner. Counsel with unsel, epartment. agree that the petitioner would n granted through a judgment of -15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. nsus, the petition is allowed in g in quashing of the impugned oner under Section 148 of the l proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE es/No es/No d f . n d e VANDANA YADAV 2026.09.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →