JASPAL SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12920/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01071591202507 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 Court quashed the impugned notice dated 30.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to a precedent being applicable, the court will follow it to grant similar relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jaspal Singh, filed a writ petition (CWP-12920-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 30.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The Income Tax Officer and others were the respondents. The case was heard by a division bench. The parties reached a consensus regarding the relief to be granted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2025 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 a previous judgment of the High Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Revenue's contention: The revenue agreed with the petitioner's submission that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen 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.139 )

CWP-12920-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

JASPAL SINGH .....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.

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 30.03.2025 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 →