PINKI GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7791/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01044231202520 March 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in light of the consensus reached by the learned counsel for both parties and following its previous decision in Jyoti Sareen's case (CWP-15791-2024), allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties to extend the relief granted in the precedent case. The principle established is that if parties agree, and a precedent exists for similar relief concerning Section 148 proceedings, the court will grant that relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pinki Gupta, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an action taken by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Faridabad. The respondents are the Income Tax Department. The case involves a notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The High Court had previously passed a judgment on 10.09.2026 in a similar case, CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, granting relief to the petitioner in that matter. The present petition was filed seeking similar relief.

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) in terms of the High Court's notice dated 10.09.2026, concerning proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequential actions. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that based on the High Court's prior judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case, they should be entitled to the same relief. The assessee sought to quash the impugned notice and any consequential proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that learned counsel for the parties agreed to the same relief as has been granted in Jyoti Sareen's case. Therefore, no specific argument was recorded for the revenue against granting similar relief.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

306 306 306 306

IN T IN T IN T IN T PINKI GUPTA PINKI GUPTA PINKI GUPTA PINKI GUPTA INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M M M for

**

DEEPAK DEEPAK DEEPAK DEEPAK SIB SIB SIB SIB

1.

Le also be entitled this Court date Union of India

2.

In terms of Jyoti notice dated 0 Income Tax Ac

10.

09 10.09 10.09 10.09.2026 .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

A

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER, WARD 2(1), FAR X OFFICER, WARD 2(1), FAR X OFFICER, WARD 2(1), FAR X OFFICER, WARD 2(1), FAR

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI SUNI SUNI SUNI Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate, for t Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Coun s. Pridhi Sandhu, Advocate and s. Nikita Garg, Jr. Standing Coun 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 09.03.2024 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-7791 7791 7791 7791-2025 2025 2025 2025 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 10.09. 10.09. 10.09. 10.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER RIDABAD AND OTHERS RIDABAD AND OTHERS RIDABAD AND OTHERS RIDABAD AND OTHERS

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH the petitioner. nsel with nsel, 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 2026.09.15 11:25 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 →