JAMEEL AHMAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/14726/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01081240202521 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, allowed the petition. The court followed its previous decision in Jyoti Sareen's case (CWP-15791-2024). The reasoning was based on the parties agreeing to the same relief as granted in the cited case. Consequently, the impugned notice dated March 26, 2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential assessment proceedings were quashed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jameel Ahmad, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged a notice dated March 26, 2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential assessment proceedings. The High Court noted that the petitioner sought the same relief as granted in a previous judgment in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, decided on September 10, 2026. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated March 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the relief granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen (CWP-15791-2024) should be extended to the present petitioner, implying that the grounds for quashing the notice and proceedings in that case are applicable here. The assessee relied on the judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue. However, the parties agreed to the same relief as granted in the cited case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

137 137 137 137

IN T IN T IN T IN T

JAMEEL AHM JAMEEL AHM JAMEEL AHM JAMEEL AHM INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M

M M M

**

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 2 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 AT AT AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

MAD MAD MAD MAD

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. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate, s. Tanya Kumar, for the respond *** 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 26.03.2024 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-14726 14726 14726 14726-2025 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 dents. 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 2026.09.15 11:25 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 →