GURUBACHAN PAL SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22002/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01116468202403 September 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, dated 10.09.2026. This was based on a consensus between the parties. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 23.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings were quashed. The reasoning was that the parties had agreed to this outcome, and the court found it appropriate to follow the precedent established in the Jyoti Sareen case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific relief based on a prior binding precedent, the court should grant that relief. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings.

What were the facts?

This case involves a writ petition filed by the petitioner, Gurubacha Pal Singh, against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana. The petitioner sought to quash an order passed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in its order dated 14.09.2026, noted that the parties had agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the same court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. Based on this consensus and in light of the principles laid down in Jyoti Sareen's case, the petition was allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 23.03.2024 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 the validity of reassessment proceedings). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the notice and proceedings, implicitly arguing they were not valid or justified. The petitioner relied on the precedent set in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, where a similar relief was granted. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the parties (including the revenue) agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. Therefore, the revenue did not contest the quashing of the notice and proceedings, consenting to the relief sought by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

260 260 260 260

IN T IN T IN T IN T

GURUBACHA GURUBACHA GURUBACHA GURUBACHA INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : 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 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

AN PAL SINGH AN PAL SINGH AN PAL SINGH AN PAL SINGH

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X X X X OFFICER, ITO WARD 6(1) OFFICER, ITO WARD 6(1) OFFICER, ITO WARD 6(1) OFFICER, ITO WARD 6(1)

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. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Co 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 23.03.2024 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-22002 22002 22002 22002-2024 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 ), LUDHIANA ), LUDHIANA ), LUDHIANA ), LUDHIANA

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH r the petitioner. Counsel with unsel, 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 →