VIPIN AGGARWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7527/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01042623202519 March 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh held that the petitioner is 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). Consequently, the petition was allowed. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 12.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the consensus between the parties, acknowledging that the petitioner's case warranted the same outcome as the precedent case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judgment, the court will grant that relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vipin Aggarwal, filed a writ petition (CWP-7527-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 12.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The Income Tax Officer and others are the respondents. The procedural history involves the agreement between the counsel for the parties that the petitioner would 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.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 12.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel agreed that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.15791 of 2024). No specific arguments were recorded for the petitioner beyond this consensus. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel (Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel) agreed with the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned 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.112 )

CWP-7527-2025(O&M)

Date of decision : 17.09.2026 VIPIN AGGARWAL .....Petitioner

Versus

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

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Standing Counsel and

Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Junior Standing Counsel for

the respondent-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 12.03.2024 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 →