VIKRAM GROVER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8474/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01047429202525 March 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in light of the consensus reached by the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition. The court noted that the parties had agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as had been granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 27.02.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings, if any, were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to extend the benefit of a prior judgment to a subsequent case involving similar circumstances and a similar notice under Section 148, the court should honor that consensus and grant the same relief, quashing the notice and proceedings.

What were the facts?

The case involves a writ petition filed by the petitioner, Vikram Grover, against the Income Tax Department. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous judgment, CWP-15791-2024, titled Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, decided on 10.09.2026. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and others. The petition was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The core of the dispute revolves around a notice dated 27.02.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings.

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 (CWP-15791-2024) decided on 10.09.2026, concerning a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific provision of law was named, but the argument is based on parity of relief. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue side. However, the outcome suggests an agreement or concession from the revenue's end, leading to the allowance of the petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

233 233 233 233

IN T IN T IN T IN T VIKRAM GR VIKRAM GR VIKRAM GR VIKRAM GR INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M M (T M M for **

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

14.

09 14.09 14.09 14.09.2026 .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 AT AT AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

ROVER OVER ROVER OVER

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 Through VC) r. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing C r. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Co r the respondents-Income Tax D *** 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 27.02.2024 issued to the petitio ct, 1961 alongwith consequential

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-8474 8474 8474 8474-2025 2025 2025 2025 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 14.09. 14.09. 14.09. 14.09.2026 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 unsel, epartment.

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

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE es/No es/No d f . n d e VANDANA YADAV 2026.09.17 12:00 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →