SURABHI MITTAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9881/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01055089202507 April 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,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 had been 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 between the parties, the petition was allowed. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 22.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the agreement of the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a prior judgment of the same court on similar facts and issues, the court will grant similar relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Surabhi Mittal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 22.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The matter came before the Court on 17.09.2026. Both the petitioner and the respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, concerning a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, agreed that they would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were detailed, but the consensus indicates acceptance of the precedent. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, also agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were detailed, but the consensus indicates acceptance of the precedent.

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.116 )

CWP-9881-2025(O&M)

Date of decision : 17.09.2026 SURABHI MITTAL .....Petitioner

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Nikhil Goyal, 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 22.03.2025 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

17.09.

2026

( SUNISH BINDLISH ) shamsher/sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable

: Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.09.18 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, 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 →