ANIL JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/5491/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01028629202527 February 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties, allowed the petition. The court quashed the impugned notice dated March 20, 2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a precedent set by the court in a similar matter, the court will grant the same relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anil Jain, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated March 20, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer and others. The case was heard on September 17, 2026. Both the petitioner and the respondents agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same court dated September 10, 2026, in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.15791 of 2024). No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 20, 2024, issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed, turning on the interpretation and application of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.15791 of 2024) decided by the High Court on September 10, 2026. Revenue's Contention: The respondents (Income Tax Department) agreed with the petitioner's submission and consented to the relief being granted in terms of the aforementioned judgment.

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.107 )

CWP-5491-2025(O&M)

Date of decision : 17.09.2026 ANIL JAIN .....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 20.03.2024 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 →