AMIT SETHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11758/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01065751202529 April 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the Court permitted the petitioner to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. The reasoning for this decision is not detailed beyond granting the petitioner's request. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with liberty.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vandana Yadav, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The respondent was the 'X Officer'. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. The petitioner also sought permission to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the fresh petition. The Court granted the liberty to withdraw the petition as prayed for.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the procedural rules of the court and the discretion of the court). 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in a fresh petition? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the scope of challenge and the court's discretion). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action and to challenge Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner was represented by Mr. Khushagra Mahajan, Advocate. Revenue's Contention: The respondent was represented by Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate, and Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate. No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue regarding the withdrawal or the challenge to Section 147A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

130 130 130 130

IN T IN T IN T IN T AMIT SETHI AMIT SETHI AMIT SETHI AMIT SETHI INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M

M

M

**

DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB

1.

Le with liberty to also to challeng

2.

Di

01.

09 01.09 01.09 01.09.2026 .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

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. Khushagra Mahajan, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate an Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate, *** BAL AL BAL AL, J. , J. , J. , J.(O (O (O (Oral ral ral ral) earned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner to file a fresh one ge therein Section 147A of the In ismissed as withdrawn with liber

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye

AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-11758 11758 11758 11758-2025 2025 2025 2025 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 01.09. 01.09. 01.09. 01.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER

...RESPONDENT ...RESPONDENT ...RESPONDENT ...RESPONDENT PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH e, for the petitioner. d for the respondent. r seeks to withdraw this petition e on the same cause of action as ncome Tax Act, 1961. rty as prayed for. (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 n s VANDANA YADAV 2026.09.02 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 147A

All 31 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →