SURAJ BHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6835/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01039091202511 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 between the parties, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 27.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to the same relief granted in a prior, similar case, the court will grant that relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Suraj Bhan, filed a writ petition (CWP-6835-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer and others. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The order under challenge is a notice dated 27.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent agreement between the parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, concerning the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This is a question of law and fact. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, agreed that they would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen (supra). Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through their counsel, also agreed to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen (supra).

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.119 )

CWP-6835-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

SURAJ BHAN .....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 27.03.2024 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 →