PRATIBHA RAJPUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5429/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01030884202527 February 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 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. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 24.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a precedent set by a coordinate bench of the same High Court, the court will grant the same relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pratibha Rajput, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 24.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The Income Tax Officer and others were the respondents. The case was heard on 15.09.2026. The counsel for both the petitioner and the respondents agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as was 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 petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, concerning the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through her counsel, agreed that she would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were detailed in the judgment, but the agreement implies acceptance of the precedent. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, also agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. This consensus indicates the revenue's acceptance of the outcome in the precedent case as applicable to the present petitioner.

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.115 )

CWP-5429-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

PRATIBHA RAJPUT .....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 24.03.2024 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 →