SUNIL SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22399/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01116236202405 September 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024), the petition should be allowed. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 17.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The reasoning was based on the agreement of both the petitioner and the revenue to extend the relief granted in the Jyoti Sareen case to the present petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that where parties consent to a particular outcome based on a prior judicial precedent, the court should grant that relief to maintain consistency and judicial economy. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sunil Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an order under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, heard the matter. The judgment notes that the parties agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, decided on 10.09.2026. This prior judgment resulted in the quashing of the impugned notice dated 17.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 17.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they should be granted the same relief as was provided in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15791-2024), which involved the quashing of a similar notice under Section 148 and consequential proceedings. The assessee relied on the consent of the parties to this effect. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned Standing Counsel, agreed with the assessee's submission that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. The revenue consented to the petition being allowed in terms of the previous judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

305 305 305 305

IN T IN T IN T IN T SUNIL SINGH SUNIL SINGH SUNIL SINGH SUNIL SINGH INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : 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 1 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 AT AT AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

H

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. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, for th Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing 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 17.03.2024 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-22399 22399 22399 22399-2024 2024 2024 2024 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

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH he petitioner. 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 2026.09.13 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 →