VASU BHATIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10855/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01061289202431 August 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (decided on 10.09.2026), allowed the petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 12.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings. The reasoning is based on the agreement of the parties and the established principle from the Jyoti Sareen case, which presumably dealt with similar grounds for challenging a notice under Section 148. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar case with identical relief has been decided, and the parties agree to the same outcome, the court will grant that relief. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The case involves a writ petition filed by the petitioner, Vasu Bhatti, against the Income Tax Department. 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 was considering this petition. The judgment notes that the parties agreed to the same relief as granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, decided on 10.09.2026. This prior judgment, in terms of Jyoti Sareen's case, resulted in the quashing of the impugned notice dated 12.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 12.04.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the notice and consequential proceedings. The judgment indicates that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous, similar case (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India). No specific arguments for the assessee are detailed, but the outcome suggests reliance on the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, agreed with the petitioner that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned case. This implies the revenue did not contest the quashing of the notice and proceedings, likely due to the binding precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

253 253 253 253

IN T IN T IN T IN T

VASU BHATI VASU BHATI VASU BHATI VASU BHATI INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : 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

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

IA IA IA IA

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. 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 12.04.2024 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-10855 10855 10855 10855-2024 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. 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 (SUNISH (SUNISH (SUNISH BINDLISH) BINDLISH) BINDLISH) BINDLISH)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE es/No es/No d f . n d e VANDANA YADAV 2026.09.19 11:39 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 →