SHRUTIDAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PANIPAT AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3700/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01020949202519 February 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN1 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, the petition was allowed. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 17.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the agreement of the parties and the application of the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to parity with a previous judgment, the same relief should be granted. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shruti Dawar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a notice dated 17.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Panipat, and others. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history is limited to 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 a previous judgment of this Court in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others? (Question of law and fact, turning on the application of precedent). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that they should receive the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. This implies reliance on the principle of parity and the specific grounds on which relief was granted in that case. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the Senior Standing Counsel, agreed with the petitioner that the same relief should be granted. This indicates no opposition to the petitioner's claim based on the precedent.

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.111 )

CWP-3700-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

SHRUTI DAWAR .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PANIPAT AND ORS ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Divya Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel

for the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department.

(appeared through VC)

* * * 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 17.04.2023 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

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 →