GURPREET KAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9760/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01054190202505 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 granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the petition was allowed in terms of the aforementioned judgment. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 28.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the consensus reached between the parties, referencing a prior judgment of the same court. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree that a case should be decided on the same lines as a previous binding precedent, the court will follow that precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gurpreet Kaur, filed a writ petition (CWP-9760-2025) before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging a notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Faridabad. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent agreement between the parties. The Income Tax Department is the respondent. The amount in dispute is not stated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid and consequential proceedings are sustainable? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice and consequential proceedings should be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The respondent-Income Tax Department agreed with the petitioner's submission that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the High Court in Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.15791 of 2024) decided on 10.09.2026. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue beyond this consensus.

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.130 )

CWP-9760-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

GURPREET KAUR .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), FARIDABAD AND OTHERS ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel and

Ms. Nikita Garg, 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 28.03.2025 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 →