BHAWANA SACHDEVA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7004/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038980202512 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). Based on the consensus between the parties, the Court allowed the petition. The impugned notice dated 23.03.2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is solely based on the agreement of the parties to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific relief based on a prior judgment of the same court on a similar matter, the court will grant that relief. No issue was expressly left undecided. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bhawana Sachdeva, challenged a notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The Income Tax Officer and others were the respondents. The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The parties 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 assessment year(s) are not specified. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history is limited to the filing of this writ petition and the agreement reached by the parties.

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 and others (CWP No.15791 of 2024) dated 10.09.2026, concerning a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The assessee argued that the present petition should be allowed in terms of the relief granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. The revenue did not record any specific arguments against this consensus, agreeing to the same relief being granted to the petitioner. The core of the issue revolves around the validity of the Section 148 notice, which is implicitly challenged by seeking parity with a case where such a notice was quashed. The specific grounds for challenging the notice in the Jyoti Sareen case are not detailed in this judgment but are the basis for the 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.120 )

CWP-7004-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

BHAWANA SACHDEVA .....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 23.03.2024 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 →