TANIKA GARG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8514/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01047548202528 March 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 has been granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 passed in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. Based on this consensus and in light of the precedent, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar relief has been granted to another assessee in a parallel writ petition based on agreed terms, the same relief should be extended to the present petitioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tanika Gar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an action by the Revenue. The Revenue had issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, initiating reassessment proceedings. The petitioner sought to quash this notice and any consequential proceedings. The High Court, in a previous case (CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others), had granted similar relief to another assessee. The parties before the court agreed that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed, and consequential proceedings are liable to be set aside? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 should be quashed and consequential proceedings set aside, seeking parity with the relief granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024). Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not record any specific argument against the assessee's claim. However, they agreed to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned precedent case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

121 121 121 121

IN T IN T IN T IN T

TANIKA GAR TANIKA GAR TANIKA GAR TANIKA GAR INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M M

M M M **

DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB

1.

Le also be entitled this Court date Union of India

2.

In terms of Jyoti notice dated 2 Income Tax Ac

11.

09 11.09 11.09 11.09.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 Vandana yadav

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

RG RG RG RG

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER AND OTHERS X OFFICER AND OTHERS X OFFICER AND OTHERS X OFFICER AND OTHERS ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocat s. Ubhai Bharti Gupta, Advocate Ms. Mamta Gupta, Advocate, for t Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate, s. Tanya Kumar, for the respond *** BAL AL BAL AL, J. , J. , J. , J.(O (O (O (Oral ral ral ral) earned counsel for the parties a d to the same relief as has been ed 10.09.2026 passed in CWP- a and others. n the light of the above consen i Sareen’s case (supra), resulting 27.03.2024 issued to the petitio ct, 1961 alongwith consequential

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye AB AND AB AND AB AND AB AND HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-8514 8514 8514 8514-2025 2025 2025 2025 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 11.09. 11.09. 11.09. 11.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH te, e and the petitioner. Counsel with dents.

agree that the petitioner would n granted through a judgment of -15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. nsus, the petition is allowed in g in quashing of the impugned oner under Section 148 of the l proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (SUNISH (SUNISH (SUNISH (SUNISH BINDLISH) BINDLISH) BINDLISH) BINDLISH)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE es/No es/No d f . n d e VANDANA YADAV 2026.09.15 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →