POOJA JUNEJA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29405/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01147742202428 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 precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case (CWP-15791-2024), allowed the petition. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 29.03.2024 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 to extend the relief granted in the cited case to the present petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to follow a previous judgment of the same court on similar facts and issues, the court should grant the same relief. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pooja June, 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, and any consequential proceedings. The petitioner sought to be entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same court in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, dated 10.09.2026. The parties, including the petitioner and the respondents (Income Tax Department), agreed to this course of action. The court considered the matter based on this consensus and the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (CWP-15791-2024) dated 10.09.2026, in relation to the impugned action under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that based on the consensus between the parties and the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case, the petition should be allowed, and the impugned action and consequential proceedings should be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Sr. Standing Counsel, agreed with the assessee's submission that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned precedent case. No other arguments were recorded for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

264 264 264 264

IN T IN T IN T IN T

POOJA POOJA POOJA POOJA JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : 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 2 Income Tax Ac

14.

09 14.09 14.09 14.09.2026 .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

EJA EJA EJA EJA

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER X OFFICER X OFFICER X OFFICER

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. Sunil K. Mukhi, Advocate, for Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing C 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 29.03.2024 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-29405 29405 29405 29405-2024 2024 2024 2024 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 14.09. 14.09. 14.09. 14.09.2026 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 r the petitioner. Counsel 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 2026.09.17 12:00 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 →