VIJAY PRATAP SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29619/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01149834202429 October 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the decision in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of both the petitioner and the respondents (Income Tax Department) to grant the same relief as previously awarded in a similar case. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vijay Pratap Singh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged an action taken by the Income Tax Department under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The High Court noted that the parties had agreed to the same relief as granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen and others vs. Union of India and others), decided on 10.09.2026. This agreement was in light of a notice dated 19.04.2024 issued to the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The assessee agreed with the revenue that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen and others (supra). This implies the assessee sought the quashing of the notice and proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as has been granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen and others (supra). This indicates the revenue consented to the quashing of the notice and proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

215 215 215 215

IN T IN T IN T IN T VIJAY VIJAY VIJAY VIJAY PRATA PRATA PRATA PRATA INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M M M M for **

DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB

1.

Le also be entitled this Court date Union of India

2.

In terms of Jyoti notice dated 1 Income Tax Ac

16.

09 16.09 16.09 16.09.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 Vandana yadav

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

AP SINGH AP SINGH AP SINGH AP SINGH

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER AND OTHERS X OFFICER AND OTHERS X OFFICER AND OTHERS X OFFICER AND OTHERS ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI Mr. Ved Jain, Advocate and r. Nishchay Kantoor, Advocate, Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Coun s. Pridhi Sandhu, Advocate and s. Nikita Garg, Jr. Standing Coun r the respondents-Income Tax D *** BAL AL BAL AL, J. , J. , J. , J.(O (O (O (Oral ral ral ral) earned counsel for the parties a d to the same relief as has been ed 10.09.2026 passed in CWP- a and others. n the light of the above consen i Sareen’s case (supra), resulting 19.04.2024 issued to the petitio ct, 1961 alongwith consequential

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye

AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-29619 29619 29619 29619-2024 2024 2024 2024 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 16.09. 16.09. 16.09. 16.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH for the petitioner. (Through VC) nsel with nsel, epartment.

agree that the petitioner would n granted through a judgment of -15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. nsus, the petition is allowed in g in quashing of the impugned oner under Section 148 of the l proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE es/No es/No ) d f . n d e VANDANA YADAV 2026.09.19 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →