VIJAY RANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7856/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01045122202520 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 granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Based on this consensus, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 26.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The ratio of this decision is that where parties agree to extend the benefit of a prior judgment to a subsequent case, the court will grant that relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vijay Rani, 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 assessment year(s) are not specified. The Income Tax Officer and others are the respondents. The procedural history involves a consensus reached between the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the High Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others)? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel also agreed to this consensus.

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.124 )

CWP-7856-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

VIJAY RANI .....Petitioner

Versus

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

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Nikhil Goayl, 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 →