SUKET WALIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/8003/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01045181202521 March 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 petitioner and the respondents (Income Tax Department), allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 28.03.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as had been granted in a previous judgment of the same Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to apply the precedent of a prior judgment of the same court, the court will grant similar relief. The operative direction was the quashing of the Section 148 notice and consequential actions. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Suket Walia, filed a writ petition (CWP-8003-2025) before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging a notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Faridabad, and others. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The parties, through their learned counsel, 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 procedural history primarily consists of this consensus between the parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.15791 of 2024) dated 10.09.2026, concerning the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (Question of law) 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 implies acceptance of the reasoning in the precedent case. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through their Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, also agreed to the petitioner receiving the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were detailed, but this agreement indicates no opposition to applying 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.114 )

CWP-8003-2025(O&M)

Date of decision : 17.09.2026 SUKET WALIA .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) 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,

Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior 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 28.03.2024 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

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 →