ACME SPACES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/4457/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01026348202518 February 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition in terms of the judgment passed in Jyoti Sareen's case dated 10.09.2026. Consequently, the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the consensus reached between the parties that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior binding precedent, the court will grant that relief. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, ACME SPACES PRIVATE LIMITED, filed a writ petition (CWP-4457-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Faridabad, and any consequential proceedings. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The matter came before the Court on 17.09.2026. Both the petitioner and the respondent Income Tax Department agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as 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 notice dated 31.08.2024 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 should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The revenue, through its counsel, agreed with this submission. No other arguments or reliance on specific authorities, circulars, or precedents were recorded for either side.

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.105 )

CWP-4457-2025(O&M)

Date of decision : 17.09.2026 ACME SPACES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel,

Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel and

Ms. Nikita Garg, 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 31.08.2024 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 →