SHARDA SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11432/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01064485202521 May 2025Author: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that 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). Based on this consensus, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 27.03.2025 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 agreement between the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The operative direction is the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sharda Sharma, filed a writ petition (CWP-11432-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 27.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The Income Tax Officer and others were the respondents. The parties, through their learned counsel, 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 notice dated 27.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.15791 of 2024), implying a challenge to the validity or basis of the Section 148 notice. No specific authorities or precedents were named by the petitioner's counsel in this judgment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific authorities or precedents were named by the revenue's counsel in this judgment.

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.136 )

CWP-11432-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

SHARDA SHARMA .....Petitioner

Versus

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

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, 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 27.03.2025 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 →