HARPAL SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HEIR JATINDER KAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/12776/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01069696202506 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 the consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed in terms of the Jyoti Sareen case. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 15.02.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings, if any, were quashed. The Court also disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to parity with a previous judgment on similar facts and legal issues, the court will grant the same relief. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harpal Singh (since deceased, through legal heir Jatinder Kaur), filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Income Tax Officer and others were the respondents. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The petition challenged a notice dated 15.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The procedural history involves a consensus reached between the parties' counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to 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)? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued, through their counsel, that they should receive the same relief as granted in the cited case of Jyoti Sareen. No specific authorities or precedents were named in the judgment for this contention. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, agreed with the petitioner's submission that the same relief should be granted. No specific authorities or precedents were named in the judgment for this contention.

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.138 )

CWP-12776-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

HARPAL SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HEIR JATINDER KAUR .....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 15.02.2024 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 →