JITENDER CHAUHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/34641/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01178579202419 December 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 20.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. This decision was based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties, who agreed that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the High Court's prior judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior judicial precedent, the court will grant that relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jitender Chauhan, filed a writ petition (CWP-34641-2024) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 20.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer and others. Both the petitioner and the respondents agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same High 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 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? The petitioner argued that the notice and proceedings should be quashed. The revenue (respondent) agreed with the petitioner's contention, consenting to the same relief granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. No specific legal provisions or precedents were explicitly mentioned by either side in the judgment for this particular case, beyond the reference to the prior 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.238 )

CWP-34641-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision : 15.09.2026

JITENDER CHAUHAN .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Varun Issar, Senior 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 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

15.09.

2026

( SUNISH BINDLISH ) sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SUNIL YADAV 2026.09.17 16:12 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 →