PRABHJOT SINGH KALRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9152/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01051097202501 April 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition. The court found 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). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 26.03.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement between the parties for parity of relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Prabhjot Singh Kalra, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 26.03.2024 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, including the petitioner and the respondents (Income Tax Department), 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 petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.15791 of 2024) dated 10.09.2026, concerning a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel agreed with the revenue's counsel that the petitioner should be granted the same relief as in the cited case of Jyoti Sareen. No specific authorities or precedents were named by the petitioner's counsel for this contention, other than relying on the consensus for parity. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel (Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel) agreed with the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. No specific authorities or precedents were named by the revenue's counsel for this contention, other than relying on the consensus for parity.

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.127 )

CWP-9152-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

PRABHJOT SINGH KALRA .....Petitioner

Versus

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

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Rajiv Sharma, 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 26.03.2024 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 →