KHANNA PAPER MILLS LTD. vs. ASSISTANT/DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9285/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01055237202312 September 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in light of the consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, decided to grant the same relief to the petitioner as was granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (CWP-15791-2024). The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief, which involved quashing the impugned notice dated 07.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties and the precedent established in the Jyoti Sareen case. The operative direction was to allow the petition and quash the notice and proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, PER MILLS LTD., filed a writ petition (CWP-9285-2023) challenging an action by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Amritsar. The respondents are the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India. This previous judgment, dated 10.09.2026, had quashed a notice dated 07.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The parties agreed to the same relief in the present case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 07.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (CWP-15791-2024), which involved quashing of a notice under Section 148 and consequential proceedings. The assessee relied on the principle of parity and the outcome of the cited case. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned counsel, agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned case of Jyoti Sareen. This indicates an agreement with the assessee's prayer for relief based on the precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

207 207 207 207

IN T IN T IN T IN T KHANNA PA KHANNA PA KHANNA PA KHANNA PA ASSISTANT/D ASSISTANT/D ASSISTANT/D ASSISTANT/D 1, AMRITSAR 1, AMRITSAR 1, AMRITSAR 1, AMRITSAR

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M M M M M fo

**

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 0 Income Tax Ac

10.

09 10.09 10.09 10.09.2026 .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

PER MILLS LTD. PER MILLS LTD. PER MILLS LTD. PER MILLS LTD.

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O R AND ORS AND ORS AND ORS AND ORS

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 Ms. Parnika Singla, Advocate and Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate, fo s. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing r. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing C s. Kavita, Advocate and s. Arushi Bansal, Advocate r the respondents. *** 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 07.04.2023 issued to the petitio ct, 1961 alongwith consequential

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye AB AND AB AND AB AND AB AND HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-9285 9285 9285 9285-2023 2023 2023 2023 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 10.09. 10.09. 10.09. 10.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH or the petitioner. g Counsel with Counsel 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 2026.09.15 16:46 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 →