DEEPAK OHLYAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/28187/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01137114202230 March 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the respondent-income tax authorities had produced a rectification order dated 27.03.2026, which reversed all additions made to the petitioner's income for assessment year 2016-17, pertaining to the property transfer. Additionally, the revenue authorities stated that the impugned penalty orders under Sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), and 271F, and the demand notices under Section 156, would also be treated as non-est. In light of these submissions, which satisfied the petitioner's counsel, the Court disposed of the petition as having been rendered infructuous. The Court directed the respondent-income tax authorities to delete any adverse remarks on their portal concerning the petitioner for assessment year 2016-17. No specific issue was left undecided; the matter was resolved by the revenue's actions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Deepak Ohlyan, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh challenging assessment orders, penalty orders, and demand notices related to assessment year 2016-17. The dispute stemmed from additions made to the petitioner's income concerning a property transfer via a deed dated 28.07.2015. The revenue authorities, represented by learned counsels, produced a rectification order dated 27.03.2026, which reversed all additions made in the assessment order dated 30.03.2022. Furthermore, the revenue agreed to treat the impugned penalty orders under Sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with the demand notices under Section 156, as non-est. This statement satisfied the petitioner's counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the additions made to the petitioner's income for assessment year 2016-17, concerning the transfer of property through a deed dated 28.07.2015, were justified under the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact, concerning relevant assessment provisions). 2. Whether the penalty orders passed under Sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential demand notices under Section 156, were sustainable in light of the subsequent rectification of the assessment order? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to have the assessment, penalty, and demand notices quashed. The petitioner was satisfied by the revenue's subsequent actions. Revenue's Contention: The revenue authorities, through their counsels, produced a rectification order that reversed the additions made in the assessment order. They also agreed to treat the penalty orders and demand notices as non-est.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b),Section 271F,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No. 112 and 229 CWP-28187-2022 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.03.2026

Deepak Ohlyan

.…. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Gurugram and others

..... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present : Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate, with

Mr. Nikhil Mehndiratta, Advocate,

Ms. Nidhisha Choksi, Advocate,

Mr. Rajat Chopra, Advocate, and

Ms. Niharika Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel, for respondents No.1 and 4-Income Tax Department.

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel, for respondent No. 3-Income Tax Department.

* * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1.

At the outset, learned counsels for the respondent-income tax authorities have produced rectification order dated 27.03.2026, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17 in the petitioner’s case, through which, in the assessment order dated 30.03.2022, all additions made to the petitioner’s income, in connection with the transfer of the property through transfer deed dated 28.07.2015, stand reversed. Learned counsels for the respondent-income tax authorities further state that the impugned penalty orders, all dated 26.09.2022, passed by the respondent-income tax authorities under Sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.04.06 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

CWP-28187-2022

[ 2 ]

(Annexures P1 to P3) and the notices of demand, all dated 26.09.2022, issued under Section 156 of the Act, in pursuance to the afore referred three penalty orders (Annexures P-4 to P-6), be also treated as non-est.

2.

The above statement made by learned counsels for the respondent- income tax authorities satisfies learned counsel for the petitioner.

3.

In view of the above, after taking the aforesaid rectification order dated 27.03.2026 on the record as Annexure-‘A’, the instant petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous with a direction to the respondent- income tax authorities to delete from its portal adverse remarks, if any, qua the petitioner, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. 4. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

[DEEPAK SIBAL]

JUDGE

30.03.

2026

[LAPITA BANERJI] shamsher

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.04.06 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →