KRISHAN GOPAL AGGARWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15779/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01086806202528 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, decided on 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024. Based on this consensus and in light of the previous judgment, the petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 29.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential assessment proceedings, are hereby quashed. The operative direction is the quashing of the notice and proceedings. No specific issue was left undecided; the matter was disposed of based on the prior precedent and mutual agreement.

What were the facts?

The case involves a writ petition filed by Opal Aggarwal (the petitioner) against the Commissioner of Income Tax and others (respondents). The petitioner sought to quash an income tax notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential assessment proceedings. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in light of a previous judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case (CWP-15791-2024), noted that the parties had agreed to the same relief as granted in that case. The court also observed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 29.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. Assessee's contentions: The petitioner sought to quash the notice and proceedings. The judgment indicates that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen's case (CWP-15791-2024). Revenue's contentions: The judgment records that the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the petitioner would also be entitled to the same relief as has been granted in Jyoti Sareen's case. This implies the revenue consented to the relief sought by the petitioner, aligning with the previous judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

140 140 140 140

IN IN IN IN T KRISHAN GO KRISHAN GO KRISHAN GO KRISHAN GO ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M 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 2 Income Tax Ac

11.09 11.09 11.09 11.09.2026 .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

OPAL AGGARWAL OPAL AGGARWAL OPAL AGGARWAL OPAL AGGARWAL

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOM COMMISSIONER OF INCOM COMMISSIONER OF INCOM COMMISSIONER OF INCOM

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. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocat s. Ubhai Bharti Gupta, Advocate s. Mamta Gupta, Advocate, for t r. 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 29.03.2025 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-15779 15779 15779 15779-2025 2025 2025 2025 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 11.09. 11.09. 11.09. 11.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ME TAX AND OTHERS ME TAX AND OTHERS ME TAX AND OTHERS ME TAX AND OTHERS

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH te e and 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 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 11:59 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 →