MANJEET KAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6304/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01035407202506 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 case of Jyoti Sareen (supra). Consequently, the petition was allowed. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 06.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties, referencing the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to a specific relief based on a prior judgment of the same court, that relief should be granted. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manjeet Kaur, filed a writ petition (CWP-6304-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 06.04.2023 issued to the petitioner 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 were the respondents. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent agreement between the parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 06.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same Court in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, dated 10.09.2026. The revenue, through its counsel, agreed with this submission. No specific arguments were recorded for either side 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.108 )

CWP-6304-2025(O&M)

Date of decision : 17.09.2026 MANJEET KAUR .....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 06.04.2023 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 →