SAURABH MITTAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7749/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01044416202520 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 is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition. 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, was quashed. The reasoning for this decision was based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties, who agreed that the petitioner should benefit from the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The operative direction was to quash the notice and consequential proceedings. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Saurabh Mittal, filed a writ petition (CWP-7749-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The Income Tax Officer and others were the respondents. Both the petitioner and the respondents agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same Court on 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The judgment was delivered on 15.09.2026.

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)? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, agreed that they are entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were recorded for the petitioner beyond this consensus. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, represented by Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, also agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue beyond 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.123 )

CWP-7749-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

SAURABH MITTAL .....Petitioner

Versus

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

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, 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 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

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 →